Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE COUNSELLORS OF STATE

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (CANADA)

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Address, as follows:

We, Counsellors of State to whom have been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated January the 25th 1966, have received Your Address to Her Majesty praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1966 be made in the form of the draft laid before Your House.

On Her Majesty's behalf we will comply with your request.

Elizabeth R.

Margaret.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Close Companies (Voluntary Liquidation)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many solvent close companies have gone into voluntary liquidation since the Finance Act, 1965, came into effect; what estimate he has made of the number of cases in which the liquidation was due to the Finance Act; and what were the different trades.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I regret that separate statistics are not available in relation to close companies.

Mr. Barnett: While accepting that Answer from my hon. and learned Friend, may I ask whether he would agree that a great deal of nonsense is spoken on the subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that in fact the Corporation Tax is very largely of great benefit to small family companies? Where, as they often do, they pay no dividends, Corporation Tax is of very great help to this type of company.

Mr. MacDermot: I would agree with my hon. Friend. The figures that are available are for motions registered by private companies for voluntary liquidation. In the period mentioned in the Question, they show 2,135 out of a total of over half a million private companies, and there have been 15,000 new registrations in the same period. These figures do not support the idea that there has been widespread liquidation of close companies as a result of the Finance Act.

Mr. William Clark: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the implications of Corporation Tax have not got through the pipeline to close companies, and also that this Question is quite irrelevant at this stage of our financial year?

Mr. MacDermot: I think that the message is getting through to these companies who go in for a policy of a high level of ploughback, because they will have considerable benefit from the tax.

Dollar Premium

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to reduce the present inflated dollar premium.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I have no statement to make on this matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the dollar premium is now at a fantastic level of nearly 18 per cent., thanks to the actions taken by the Chancellor last April, would he now be gracious enough to do something to help the investor who has to pay the equivalent of a 5 per cent. capital levy when he realises dollar investments?

Mr. Callaghan: This is a way in which an investor overseas can do something to help the official exchange reserves. He is doing so, and I am very grateful to him for doing it.

Agriculture and Horticulture (Capital Allowances and Investment Incentives)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the benefits to be derived from new tax arrangements for horticulturalists similar to those in force in Holland; and if he will clarify the Government's intentions on capital allowances and investment incentives for agriculture and horticulture, and in particular for horticultural glass.

Mr. MacDermot: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell).

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. and learned Friend look at the account of this industry in the Westminster Bank Review for August of last year, and will he look specifically at the problems of the balance of payments situation arising from our imports of £15 million worth of Dutch glasshouse produce every year, with a view to helping our industry in the same way as the Dutch Government help theirs?

Mr. MacDermot: I am not aware of any arrangements in Holland bestowing greater advantages on their horticulturalists than the provisions announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday bestow on ours.

Double Taxation Agreements

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his negotiations of further double taxation agreements, he will avoid using as a model his recent agreement with the United States of America whereby the United States revenue will, on average, take from the British investor and company 51·9 per cent. of distributed profits, whereas the British revenue will take only 44·5 per cent. from American investors in this country; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: In negotiating double taxation agreements there are many factors to be taken into account not all of which are limited to the immediate taxation effects. Each case will be treated on its merits, having regard to the model treaty of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions? First, has this treaty been signed? Secondly, will he agree that whereas in the past we have taken £56 for every £100 of American profit earned here, we now take £45, and further that this precedent will have an adverse effect in negotiating treaties with other States for the protection of British shareholders? Finally, will he agree that this will cost the Revenue £10 million this year and a very considerable loss of dollar exchange?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that that is a rather loaded way of putting a very difficult series of propositions. The treaty has not technically been signed. The Americans and ourselves have reached heads of agreement which were made public for the convenience of those who wish to know about these matters. As regards the changes in deductions, I would not care to accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures quite in the way he put them. I think that he is over-stating the amount deducted initially. The amount to be deducted will depend partly on the rate of Corporation Tax. Whether it will have an adverse effect in negotiating treaties with other countries I do not know, but I do not think that it necessarily will. It is our aim to follow the O.E.C.D. convention, and indeed I have been pressed from the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House so to do. As for the cost to the balance of payments, it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or for any one else to quantify that. It depends on the amount of inward investment which flows from the fact that our tax rate is likely to be lower than that of the Americans.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions produce long answers.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does or does not accept the calculation which is made in the original Question on the Order Paper? If he does, will he explain why


he has made such a bad bargain on behalf of this country?

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that I did not waste any words in replying to the long question.
These figures are correct as stated here, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman against simple arithmetic. Not all these issues are susceptible to that kind of treatment.

Mr. Fraser: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and in view of the abject—[Interruption.]—I will raise the matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.

Purchase Tax (Sports Equipment)

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to remove Purchase Tax on sports equipment.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind.

Mr. Evans: In view of the fact that the Treasury has done much in recent months to introduce a fairer system of taxation, will my hon. and learned Friend consider taking the tax off the football field and putting it on the roulette table, and taking it off the slow-arm bowler and putting it on the one-armed bandit?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know about the "slow arm bowler", but I think that my hon. Friend is bowling a wide.

Gambling

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce about the contribution that gambling makes to the national revenue; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Callaghan: I received a letter from the Association on this and other subjects, and replied that I would carefully consider the points made.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a great need for national revenue to meet the road,

school, health and educational programmes of the Government? Does he realise that if he introduced this he would be backing a winner, and that the odds would be as good as those on a Labour victory?

Mr. Callaghan: This is very tempting indeed. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to it as being a milkable industry, but I warn my hon. Friend and anyone else against any expectations of large revenue from this type of activity.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase in gambling, he will tax it more heavily.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to regulate gaming establishments through the medium of a tax upon the units of play, such as roulette tables and chemin de fer tables, of between £5,000 and £10,000 per annum, and a tax of £2,000 per annum per betting shop.

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Fisher: Does not the Chancellor agree that as gambling is now legalised and is, from the point of view of the State, an entirely non-productive activity—and as it is relatively very under-taxed, compared with drink and tobacco—it can contribute in larger measure to the national Budget and thus, indirectly, to the social and perhaps even the defence needs of the people?

Mr. Callaghan: These questions have been canvassed on many occasions. Every Chancellor has, perched on his shoulder, the ghost of Sir Winston Churchill, who last attempted to do this very thing.

National Savings

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net withdrawal of National Savings in 1965–66 to the nearest convenient date; and how this compares with the same period in 1963–64 and 1964–65.

Mr. MacDermot: In the first 45 weeks the total outstanding fell by £2·7 million, compared with increases of £240·7 million and £268·9 million in the same period of 1963–64 and 1964–65.

Mr. Mills: Is it not clear that those are alarming figures? Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the attitude of the small investor has undergone a revolutionary change because of concern about the prospects of inflation which has coloured his attitude? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say when he can make a statement about changes in the whole future of National Savings and in particular Savings Certificates?

Mr. MacDermot: I would not agree that the figures are very alarming. They are naturally disappointing, and we discussed the reasons for this at some length in a recent debate. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to take too pessimistic a view. The total outstanding in National Savings since the present Government took office has increased by about £140 million.

Mr. William Clark: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a reduction in National Savings must indicate a lack of confidence in the Government of the day?

Mr. MacDermot: Not at all. There are seasonal variations, and there are also variations when savers feel that there are other ways in which they can invest their savings more advantageously. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the total outstanding in National Savings at the end of October of last year, which is the latest figure I have, was £8,379 million.

Banks (Credit Restraint)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in any future instructions he gives to the Bank of England on restrictions of credit by the banks he will take into account the proposed development of the credit card system.

Mr. MacDermot: The banks are aware that credit restraint is intended to apply to all forms of bank lending to the private sector.

Mr. Lewis: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this appears to go beyond normal overdrafts, and is an extension of personal credit? Does he see it as possibly inflationary?

Mr. MacDermot: It need not be. It is a new form of credit, and it may be

a useful one. What is important is that bank credit should keep within those limits which are necessary in the national interest, and the banks have co-operated very fully with the policy which was laid down by my right hon. Friend earlier last year.

Stock Exchange Dealings (Tax Avoidance)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps the Treasury proposes to take to deal with tax avoidance in connection with dealings on the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Callaghan: As I said in my Answer on 15th February it will take some time to complete the investigations into the recent series of transactions which may have involved tax irregularities. I cannot say yet what new tax legislation may be required to prevent these abuses.

Mr. Hamling: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is some urgency in the matter because the small taxpayer pays his tax regularly and honestly and is much offended by this sort of practice on the Stock Exchange?

Mr. Callaghan: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will be no delay in dealing with this matter; but these arrangements are so ingenious that they will involve separate examination of many individual transactions, and it will take a great deal of the Revenue's time to try to pin them down.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that although tax evasion is reprehensible, and can and should be corrected by this House, it has always been accepted that it is right for people, or at any rate open to them, so to arrange their affairs that they pay the least amount of tax on those transactions?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter of philosophy on the general issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not apply his remarks to this particular case, because I think that it may well go much further than arranging one's affairs to avoid the payment of the maximum amount of tax. In this case—I am choosing my words carefully—there may well be an example of something that is much more reprehensible.

Mr. Grant: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the vigilance of the Stock Exchange Council which has brought many of these practices to the light of day?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, in my Answer of 15th February I said exactly that. The Revenue would not have discovered it if it had not been for the activities of the Stock Exchange Council; but the fact remains that whether suspension from the Floor of the Stock Exchange is sufficient to deal with this matter is something that must be further considered.

Mr. Manuel: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while it is all right for individuals to make the best possible tax arrangements, they should do so within the rules laid down by this House.

Mr. Iain Macleod: That is the point I made.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect, it was not. It may have been the point which the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make, but the reason why these members were suspended by the Stock Exchange Council was that they did not observe the rules which had been laid down.

Public Works Loan Board

Mr. Hamling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with local authorities on improving facilities for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. Callaghan: My officials are frequently in touch with local authorities about their borrowing arrangements and the facilities for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board have been improved in a number of respects since the Government took office.

Mr. Hamling: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvements made in the last 15 months, but does not he agree that it is to this kind of operation that local authorities look for improvement in obtaining their capital requirements?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I will not hark back to what we have just been discussing, but I am sure that, like tax-payers, local authorities make their financial arrangements in the way that will best suit themselves.

This is not always the way that suits the Exchequer.

Capital Gains Tax

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage the small saver, he will introduce legislation to allow a moderate sum to be allowed free of Capital Gains Tax in any one year.

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give exemption from Capital Gains Tax to the first £500 of gains.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why are the Government doing everything they can to penalise individual savers? Do they want individuals to become as spendthrift as the Government themselves?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not accept the hon. Member's proposition. He will realise that, whatever the advantages of his proposal might be, most of the benefit would go to the large investor who realises gains year by year.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not the hon. and learned Member appreciate that this proposal would reduce the almost intolerable load of administration of this tax, and that it should be considered seriously from that point of view, whatever the politics of the matter may be?

Mr. MacDermot: It is very easy to over-estimate the amount of work that this proposal would save. It would still be necessary to calculate the precise amount of an individual's gains, unless they were clearly below the exemption limit.

Dollar Securities

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a list of the British Government's present holding of dollar securities.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. As stated previously, the management of a very large holding of this character is best conducted without publicity.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the recent rise on the American market, did not the selling of dollar securities last year


entail a large loss, running into millions of pounds of our securities? Which man in Whitehall was responsible for this grave misjudgment?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that it was the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I have no doubt that he acted on good advice, and, equally, I have no doubt that he was right. At whatever time he sold securities there would always have to come a time when they were either above or below the selling point.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any British Government dollar securities were sold in June, July and August last and the proceeds not reinvested.

Mr. Callaghan: I have nothing to add to my reply of 3rd August, 1965.

Mr. Digby: I recognise that it is not a good thing that there should be too much publicity on this, but is it not highly undesirable that it should be necessary to consult official American statistics to find out what is happening to these funds, which are the property of the British Government and that we should be able to learn a great deal more from them than the Chancellor appears willing to tell us in the House of Commons?

Mr. Callaghan: I should not like that to be the case. I am not aware that it is precisely as the hon. Gentleman says, but I will, of course, look into the matter.

Mr. Iain Macleod: May I press the Chancellor on this matter? If his answer is that this would do harm to sterling, I have nothing further to add, but the Prime Minister gave considerable details of the pressure which sterling was under in those months. Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it might help, at this distance of time, to have a more complete answer now?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that this has anything to do with pressure on sterling. This is the conversion of dollar securities. I have, on many occasions, given the total value of the dollar securities which form the front line reserves. They amount to well over 1,250 million dollars. That amount is still there and still stands.

World Monetary Problems

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to receive the report of the Ministers' deputies of the Group of Ten on world monetary problems.

Mr. Callaghan: In the late spring or early summer.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not the Chancellor aware that there has been almost universal criticism of the Treasury's refusal to reveal even the outline of British ideas on these matters—if there are any? Will he think again about this and at the same time tell us why there has been such a long delay in the publication of this report?

Mr. Callaghan: The British proposals, like the others, were handed in confidentially, and it was agreed among all the participants that there would not be publicity. In fact, I did what other Ministers of Finance did, namely, gave a broad outline in a speech some weeks ago. What I said then can be repeated. On the second part of the supplementary question, it was agreed at the International Monetary Fund meeting that this should be the time-table.

State Unit Trust

William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider establishing a State unit trust.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give priority to the creation of State unit trust.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the creation of a State-owned unit trust; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Box: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had regarding the formation of a State unit trust.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has taken note of these suggestions by hon. Members. He continues to keep this matter under review, but has not had any formal consultations outside Government circles about it. Naturally he would


study with the care they deserve any representations which might be made to him.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he has been taking note of this question and keeping it under constant review for a very long time? Does not he recognise that this would be very attractive for the kind of small investor mentioned in an earlier Question? Can he say what are the insuperable difficulties that are holding the Government back from action in this matter?

Mr. MacDermot: In his Budget speech last year my right hon. Friend said that the idea had many attractions but that he did not propose to embark upon it, as the Post Office would be busy with its new investment account, which he regarded as having first priority. There are difficulties about the scheme, although I do not suggest that they are insuperable. My right hon. Friend will need to consider them further. Some of them arise from the high cost of running a trust with a large number of small unit holdings and the very considerable administrative load that would be imposed on the Post Office.

Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is now great support for the idea, notwithstanding the difficulties, some of which he has touched upon and many others that we must recognise? Might not this be a device for tapping new layers of potential savers, which cannot be tapped by any of the existing institutions?

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend is aware of the support given by the N.E.D.C. to this proposal and will be glad to consider any representations that may be made on the subject.

Mr. Box: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people feel that a State unit trust could be used as a device to spread Government control of industry? When the Chancellor is considering this question further, will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise him to bear in mind the possibility of forming a unit trust of unit trusts?

Mr. MacDermot: That is an example of the way in which hon. Members opposite

are hoist with the petard of their own silly propaganda.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: As such a State unit trust would be based predominantly on British industrial securities, is it not pleasant to hear the confidence expressed by hon. Members opposite in British industry? Further, does it not highlight the fears of inflation that they have for the future?

Mr. MacDermot: I would remind the hon. Member that for the most part my hon. Friends represent those who work in British industry.

Piston-engined Aircraft (Fuel Duty)

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to encourage low-cost inter-city air flights in Great Britain, he will reduce the tax on aviation gasoline for piston-engined aircraft to bring it into line with the tax on fuel for turbo-prop and jet aircraft.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted.

Mr. Marten: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the tax on fuel for jet aircraft is at the rate of 2d. a gallon whereas the tax on fuel for piston-engined aircraft is at the rate of 39d. a gallon? Since most of the intercity services are carried out by piston-engined aircraft will not the Chancellor do something to reduce the tax on the fuel of piston-engined aircraft, if he is not able to abolish the tax on both?

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts relating to the incidence of this duty, but he must have regard to wider considerations in determining what changes should be made in the level of taxation.

Scotch Whisky

Mr. Stodart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the exporting for the first time of £100 million of Scotch whisky in a single year, he will now take steps to assist the in crease of the industry's sales at home.

Mr. Callaghan: I raise my glass to the Scotch whisky industry on this splendid export achievement, but it does not enable me to anticipate my Budget.

Mr. Stodart: Does not the Chancellor think that a celebration of this splendid achievement is called for in particularly good measures? Is it not a fact that for the first time for many years the revenue that he has received in the first nine months since the Budget has fallen? Would not a possible celebration be to recover the £5 million lost to the Revenue as a result of his action in this respect in the last Budget?

Mr. Callaghan: I am ready to join the hon. Member in a celebration at any time, but it would be as well to wait for a longer period to elapse before judging the effect on the Revenue, because a considerable amount of forestalling went on before the last Budget.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the tax on whisky and also the tax on tobacco? Does he realise that the cost of my living is rapidly increasing?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend in another way, if he cares to see me afterwards.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the reduction in volume of home sales of Scotch whisky in the nine months April to December, 1965, compared with the similar period of the previous year.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been collected from whisky duty in 1965–66 as against a similar period in 1964–65.

Mr. Callaghan: I have no figure for sales. Clearances from bonded warehouses were 7 per cent. lower, but there were unusually high clearances in anticipation of the last Budget. The amount of duty collected on whisky in the period April-December, 1965, was about £105 million compared with £100 million in the same period in 1964.

Mr. Campbell: Does not this reduction show that the tax is too high and that the Chancellor may gain little, if any, extra revenue? Is not nine months a long enough period to even out any pre-Budget forestalling?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I do not think it is. I think that, as the months go by—for example, April to December was

far better than the April to October figures which the hon. Member gave me when he came to see me—he will see the constant improvement continue.

Mr. William Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, with the high taxation on whisky and tobacco, the law of diminishing returns is operating? How does the reduction on the produce of this revenue compare with his estimate in his last Budget?

Mr. Callaghan: I am afraid that the figures do not show what the hon. Gentleman seems to have been misled into thinking they do. I will gladly give the figures, if he will put down a Question.

Mr. Rankin: Do not the figures also show that the amount of whisky sold to the consumer as a tot is far too small? Is it not time that the tot was allowed to grow into a toddler, at least?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend and I are completely at one on this, but I was under that impression long before the tax was put up.

Tax Reserve Certificates

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether tax reserve certificates purchased by a company may be utilised in future in payment of Corporation Tax or in payment of Income Tax deducted from dividends to shareholders.

Mr. MacDermot: It was announced some time ago that tax reserve certificates of the present series and of future series may be used for payment of Corporation Tax. My right hon. Friend has now decided that they may also be used for payment of Capital Gains Tax. Future series held by companies will not be available for payment of Income Tax deducted from dividends.

Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the last part of his Answer will cause disappointment? We welcome the fact that he is able to give this statement now, but is it not a little late—12 months after the Finance Act? Will he now make certain that the usual channels are aware of this information, so that industries which have not known where to go may now obtain the correct advice?

Mr. MacDermot: Full particulars will be available in the new prospectus for any new series. This is not the occasion either for great surprise or disappointment. Income Tax on dividends is not a tax on company profits; it is a tax on shareholders' incomes, which is paid by the company as collecting agent. The analogy is that of P.A.Y.E., and tax reserve certificates have never been available for that.

Mr. Peter Emery: But does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the tax situation has been greatly altered since last year's Finance Bill, that new principles now have to be observed by firms, and that there is a considerable pressure for the Chancellor to reconsider this matter so that the latter part of the Answer could be reversed?

Mr. MacDermot: I am aware that substantial changes have been made in our taxation system by last year's Finance Bill. The decision made is clearly in accordance with the principles on which those tax reforms were based.

Public Service Vehicles (Fuel Duty)

Mr. Younger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from local authorities in Ayrshire regarding tax policy on fuel oil used by public service vehicles.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has received three letters favouring the abolition of the duty on bus fuel oil.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities representing all political views in Ayrshire are united in the view that the tax is against the public interest? Will he, therefore, state clearly whether it is desirable, in his opinion, that costs in public service transport should be reduced and fares to the travelling public reduced also?

Mr. MacDermot: Part of that question is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I certainly cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. I am aware of the widespread representations—highly organised—which have been made by local authorities on this matter. They are perfectly properly made, of course. However, any proposition

to increase the grants—there is the grant of 6d. a gallon—must be looked at against our economic situation and the increased demands of public expenditure on our resources.

Mr. Rankin: Were not these representations made to a succession of Tory Chancellors? What was the result?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know what the result was from them—I think it was nothing—but the result last year was that the present grant of 6d. a gallon was made, which costs over £4 million a year.

Gross Domestic Product

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the gross domestic product for 1965, and what it would have been if it had increased during 1965 by the same percentage as the average annual increase of the previous six years.

Mr. MacDermot: Estimates of the gross domestic product for the year 1965 will not be available until late in March.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman concealing these figures for political purposes? Is he aware that they will almost certainly show much less growth than in the past? Does he remember his party fighting the election on the pledge that the cost of Socialism could be met out of increased growth? Is he now prepared to admit that the cost of Socialism is not only greater but results in less growth?

Mr. MacDermot: It is impossible to conceal figures which are not available. I would remind the hon. Member that, under the previous Administration, pre-election booms, like that of 1964, were followed by several years of stagnation. When the figures are available, the hon. Member will see that, so far from stagnation, there has been continuing growth.

Customs Officials, London Airport

Mr. Onslow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the hours authorised for free attendance by Customs officials at London Airport.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend is considering this as part of a general review of charges for attendance by Customs officials.

Mr. Onslow: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the £100,000 which is at present levied on operators through London Airport for Customs attendance outside the permitted hours is a serious handicap for one of Britain's major ports?

Mr. MacDermot: As I have said, the matter is being reviewed. I do not wish to comment further than that. I am aware of the figure mentioned.

Travelling Expenses (Income Tax Relief)

Mr. K. Lomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to allow Income Tax relief for travelling expenses where public transport is used and the annual amount exceeds £26.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.

Mr. Lomas: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that not to give some form of tax relief for these people who are compelled to travel by public transport and incur a cost of 10s. a week or more places them at a gross disadvantage compared with those who obtain a car from the firm for which they work or receive a substantial car allowance?

Mr. MacDermot: I think that my hon. Friend's proposal would work unfairly between different classes of taxpayers, including those for whom public transport may not be available. Generally speaking, our tax system does not take into account variations in living costs, and travelling costs are one such.

National Savings Movement (50th Anniversary)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of the National Savings Committee in March, 1966; and whether he will use this opportunity to ensure a renewed inflow of National Savings, to encourage the voluntary workers in the savings movement.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. There will be a ceremony at the Guildhall on 30th March to which Her Majesty The Queen has accepted an invitation followed by functions in other cities and towns. This will help to encourage the work of the

National Savings Movement in its jubilee year.

Mr. Cordle: Is it not satisfying that there are sufficient funds for the local and national committees to carry out the publicity of the celebrations of the jubilee? Would he not agree that, perhaps, a 1 per cent. bonus increase from 1st March would be a great incentive to savings?

Mr. Callaghan: As regards the first part of the question, the voluntary work of so many thousands of National Savings workers is being recognised in a very marked way by the allocation of sufficient funds to enable the celebrations to go on. I can make no comment on the second part of the question.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not clear that public money is flowing out of savings certificates, in particular, in a torrent and that unless the Chancellor, in conjunction with the National Savings Movement, looks at some method of increasing the attraction of Savings Certificates, this trend will continue?

Turnover Tax

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate studies of turnover tax as a substitute for Great Britain's present system of indirect taxation.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Report of the Richardson Committee. None the less, I shall keep the issue under review.

Mrs. Williams: May I ask the Chancellor to look at this urgently, in view of the fact that it is more possible to help exports without falling foul of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade under this system than under the one which we at present operate?

Mr. Callaghan: There was an argument about how far it helped exporters and I do not think that it was clearly resolved. The Richardson Committee did not reach the conclusion of my hon. Friend; but there are other changes taking place on the Continent in relation to value-added taxes which could be met in some ways by adjustments of our own system. I do not want to pre-judge that issue: that is why I say that we shall keep it under review.

Investment Clubs

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the growth of investment clubs.

Mr. MacDermot: We are trying to reach agreement with the National Association of Investment Clubs on a simplified procedure in relation to Capital Gains Tax.

Rhodesia (Private Pension Payments)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he decided to discontinue the ban he had placed on the payment of private pension payments to persons resident in Rhodesia.

Mr. Callaghan: In order to safeguard the interests of individual pensioners.

Mr. Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, on 16th December, he firmly rejected the suggestion made by me that private pensioners should be included, that nothing further was said in the House, that a circular was sent out by the Bank of England in January and that no explanation has been given to the House for him completely changing his mind on this subject?

Mr. Callaghan: I understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—wait for it—from some private exchanges that there is involved in the question the suggestion that I misled the hon. Gentleman. I have read my Answer of 16th December and I think that it was open to two constructions. [Interruption.] If an attempt at courtesy is to be met in this way, then I really will have to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in my view, my Answer could bear only the construction which I put on it and that the hon. Gentleman drew a different conclusion. There has been no change in policy and he was not misled.

Inspectors of Taxes (Instructions)

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if comprehensive instructions have been issued to district inspectors of taxes from Somerset House, regarding the Finance Act, 1965, enabling them to give authoritative advice to tax payers on difficult tax questions.

Mr. MacDermot: Inspectors of taxes have had detailed instructions on the main aspects of the Corporation Tax and more will follow soon. They have also received memoranda on various aspects of the Capital Gains Tax and comprehensive instructions will be issued next month.

Mr. Royle: Would the Financial Secretary tell the House why there has been this long delay in the issue of comprehensive instructions? It is more than nine months since the last Budget. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the situation has caused difficulty for inspectors and delay for business men who are trying to plan ahead?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. There has been no delay. This major task has been conducted as a matter of urgency. Inspectors have received detailed instructions about the various aspects of the new work when they needed them, and I understand that inspectors have generally been able to answer all the queries raised by taxpayers.

House Mortgages (Stamp Duty)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to assist home ownership, he will abolish the Stamp Duty on house mortgages up to £3,500.

Mr. MacDermot: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Fisher: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind, when he comes to consider these matters at the appropriate time, that Stamp Duty on home purchases up to £3,500 has been abolished but that the Stamp Duty on house mortgages is still levied? Are not those who must buy their houses on mortgages, certainly on the face of it, in greater need of relief than those who are able to purchase their houses outright?

Mr. MacDermot: The transfer duty exemption in fact applies to houses with a value of £4,500. I am aware of the position and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have looked into the matter carefully. I might add that the Stamp Duty on a mortgage of £3,500 is at present £4 7s. 6d.

Rhodesia (Currency Restrictions)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exempt from the currency restrictions at present applying to Rhodesia any funds specifically directed towards institutions supporting multi-racial education.

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. Each case must be considered on its merits.

Mr. Lloyd: Will not the Financial Secretary concede, whatever other objectives might be thought to be either the desirable or inevitable consequences of the sanctions, that the obstruction of multi-racial education cannot be thought to be one of them? Will he reconsider his Answer?

Mr. MacDermot: The primary objective is to bring about a return to constitutional Government by making the sanctions affective. We do allow exemptions and each one must be very carefully considered. We realise the value of multi-racial education and some exemptions have been allowed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that charitable funds intended for missionary schools for the education of Africans in Rhodesia are being held up because of the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Is this what the Financial Secretary really wants? Does not everyone agree that education is the key to a proper future for Rhodesia?

Mr. MacDermot: I think that, generally speaking, charities have been appreciative and understanding of the Government's policy in this matter. The general rule is to allow remittances for current expenditure at the level of 75 per cent. of last year's remittances.

Corporation Tax

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his decision to fix the level of Corporation Tax, he will take account of the need to encourage the smaller savers to invest in British industry.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend will take all relevant circumstances into account.

Mr. Gower: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues at the Treasury are particularly worried about the great drop which has occurred in savings of all kinds since this Government took responsibility for the affairs of the country?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not accept that there has been a great drop in savings of all kinds.

Balance of Payments

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the nation is still not living within its income; what are the main reasons for this; what new steps he proposes to take to achieve this end; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: The facts about the balance of payments have been published and are well known but they cannot be too frequently repeated. However, we have made good progress towards our objective of eliminating the deficit by the end of 1966, and if I judge that further measures are required to reach that objective, I shall take them.

Sir C. Osborne: Does the Chancellor remember that about a year ago he promised that he would try to make the nation live within its means? Why has he so far failed to achieve that objective?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer is, I think, that we have not yet got there, because we set ourselves a two-year target—[Interruption.] I said "a two-year target"—to eliminate the deficit. There is a very good prospect that by the end of this year, certainly on our current account, we shall be in balance.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling to the most recent convenient date as compared with October, 1964.

Mr. MacDermot: On the basis of the index of retail prices, the purchasing power of the £, taken as 20s. in October, 1964, was about 18s. 11d. in January, 1966.

Sir C. Osborne: Did I hear the Financial Secretary aright—18s.?

Mr. MacDermot: I said 18s. 11d.

Sir C. Osborne: This is the greatest inflation since 1951. Can the Financial Secretary say what is the cause of this extraordinary and disastrous inflation?

Mr. MacDermot: Yes, Sir. Quite simply, most of the increase was in the early months, as a result of the measures we had to take in order to deal with the deficit which was left to us. Hon. Members can take comfort from the fact that the rise in the index in the last 10 months has been 1·7 per cent.

Temporary Import Surcharge

Mr. Peter Emery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the temporary import surcharge.

Mr. MacDermot: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.

Mr. Emery: Can the Financial Secretary give any estimate of the feather-bedding which industry is now obtaining in not having to compete because of the surcharge aspects? Is it not now a nonsense that this should have been originally described as a temporary import surcharge?

Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir. I hope that industry has not been regarding this as a feather-bedding measure but has been taking advantage of it so as to be able to face the removal of the charge with equanimity.

Mr. Duffy: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some of the steepest increases in imports have been in just those categories covered by the temporary surcharge?

Mr. MacDermot: In some cases that is so, but it surely emphasises that we were right to apply the surcharge where we did.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Financial Secretary tell us how much longer he thinks the members of E.F.T.A. will tolerate this flagrant breach of the Treaty of Stockholm?

Mr. MacDermot: I think our friends in E.F.T.A. are showing great understanding of our difficulties and also understand that it is our intention, which they accept, to abolish the charge as soon as our balance of payments position allows.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIETNAM

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Prime Minister if, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's initiative to secure peace in Vietnam, and in view of the fact that it is the policy of the Government of South Vietnam not to assist peace negotiations, he will withdraw recognition from their Government.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend consider the unchallenged evidence that the South Vietnamese Government are predominantly Fascist, about which the best thing the American Secretary of State could say was that it was the first Government which had the support of the armed forces? Would my right hon. Friend agree that that is not a very good way of describing a democratic Government, and should we not therefore condemn and not be associated with their policies?

Mr. Brown: I would not accept all of that. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 8th February in the House, there have been some difficulties in this quarter but there is not the slightest intention on our part to allow these to obstruct progress towards negotiations and peace in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL COMPANIES (EXPORTS)

Mr. Hopkins: asked the Prime Minister what steps he takes to co-ordinate the activities of the Treasury and the Board of Trade in the promotion of exports by small companies.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
The two Departments work closely and satisfactorily together on this.

Mr. Hopkins: Would the First Secretary recognise that while the E.C.G.D. at the Board of Trade provides valuable assistance to small companies which are trying to export, one of the great hazards which such companies face is the question of credit terms, a matter which comes under the Treasury? Is he aware that several export orders have been lost because of the length of credit afforded by the Treasury?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept that. It is the great help which the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer give that has enabled the E.C.G.D. to do what it is doing.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering this important matter will my right hon. Friend have special regard to the needs of the development areas?

Mr. Brown: We are doing that and we recently announced a number of new measures which we are taking for that very purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Grant: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Overseas Development at Hull on 16th January, 1966, about housing represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grant: Is the First Secretary aware that in that speech the Minister of Overseas Development boasted that in the sphere of housing the Government had made an impressive start? How can this possibly be reconciled with the abject failure of the Government to keep their election pledge to build 400,000 houses?

Mr. Brown: I commend the speech made by my right hon. Friend and if the hon. Gentleman reads all of it he will see all the evidence set out.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA (LAGOS CONFERENCE)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister what were the commitments, other than those specified in the communiqué,

which he entered into at Lagos; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Mr. King: Would the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the Prime Minister neither gave nor implied any kind of guarantee in regard to sanctions or laid down any timetable? Will he also assure us that in the event of sanctions not being successful we are completely free as to the course of action we may then take?

Mr. Brown: Under this Government, as under our predecessors, these intergovernmental discussions must remain confidential, but the Answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman was conclusive and clear.

Mr. Heath: Would the First Secretary say whether there have been any meetings of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee and, if so, what advice it has given to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Brown: That is an altogether different question and I do not think that I should go into that at all.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement in the Lagos communiqué approved by him stating that the principle of one man, one vote should be applied to Rhodesia has been broadcast to the Rhodesian people.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I am satisfied that the contents of the Lagos communiqué, including the principle to which the hon. Member refers, have received wide publicity in Rhodesia and are well known to the Rhodesian people.

Mr. King: Was not this pledge written into the Lagos communiqué without any qualification, and does it not directly conflict with the pledge given both to this House and to Mr. Smith that the principle of one man, one vote, was not immediately to be implemented? Does it not arouse mistrust if contradictory pledges are given to Europeans and Africans?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is introducing quite a different question,


which is the question of the timing of the one man, one vote, principle. As I understand it, none of us has gone back on the principle. The question of timing is a different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA (GOVERNMENT AID)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the discontinuation of British aid to African States giving facilities for the subversion of other African States and territories, contrary to the principle of the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend indicated on 1st February, in general we consider it unprofitable to attach specific political conditions to our aid.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not the Government realise that British aid is, in certain cases, freeing financial resources in certain African States for the subversion of other African territories and British interests; and will Her Majesty's Government think again on this issue?

Mr. Brown: Any attempt to link economic aid, which has to do with humanitarian conditions as well as necessary economic development, with political conditions would be a very great mistake.

Mr. Heath: I think that we take the same view as the Government in that no action should be taken with undue haste. However, is the First Secretary saying that when countries have broken off diplomatic relations with us and continue to refuse to regain diplomatic relations, we should then treat them in exactly the same way as friendly countries and other members of the Commonwealth with regard to aid?

Mr. Brown: I think that, at the moment, it is wise to go on as we are doing.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the humanitarian aims mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, would he now agree that there should be a restoration of the cut in missionary remittances, from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., and that the figure should be even higher than that?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on economic affairs at Hull on 24th January, 1966, represents Government policy.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mills: Did not the speech of the Chancellor admit that from the spring onwards prices would rise "much more slowly," in his own words? Is not this an admission that the Chancellor expects the floodgate of prices in the interim period to explode?

Mr. Brown: I should have thought exactly the contrary. My right hon. Friend said that there was a real chance that they would go more slowly this year than last year. That is quite different from the point the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the First Secretary realise that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of my speech in Hull referring to the possibility of the F.111 being purchased, as the greatest non-issue of the election? What has he to say about that now?

Mr. Brown: As the election turned out, as far as he was concerned, it was.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE AND COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that recent major crises in the Commonwealth have involved British foreign policy as a whole, he will reconsider his earlier decision about the merger of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office into one Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Steel: Does not the First Secretary think that to implement this proposal would not merely bring us into line with all other Commonwealth countries, but


would lead to the more efficient implementation of foreign policy and to considerable savings?

Mr. Brown: I do not think so. At the moment we are making progress in co-ordinating the work of the Departments. We have a unified secretariat. I think that the way it is going is the right sort of pace.

Sir G. de Freitas: Since the two external services are now to be combined into one service, is it not even more important that there should be one Minister here to deal with the relations of the 21 different countries, many very young and all looking to us for guidance?

Mr. Brown: As things are at the moment, yes; we certainly believe that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Bryan: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on the Rent Act by the Minister of Housing and Local Government at Swansea on Friday, 10th December, 1965, represents Her Majesty's Government's policy.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in this speech the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he thought that the Government were doing pretty well in holding prices? However he is doing, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is carrying out to the letter what he suggested at the election time, which was that the cost of living
…can and must and will be held.

Mr. Brown: And despite the obstruction from over there, it is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did the speech also indicate that the Government had earned out their pledge to introduce 3 per cent. mortgages?

Mr. Brown: The speech made it quite clear that we will implement all our pledges.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (SPEECH)

Mr. Bryan: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs at Hull on 23rd January on prices and incomes represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bryan: The House will realise from the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the last Question that someone else is always to be blamed. But will the First Secretary now tell us why both at Hull and in Camberwell he blamed industrialists for the rise in prices? Why did he not name the industrialists, and was not this a completely parallel allegation to the one for which the Prime Minister had to apologise to the chairman of Hardy Spicer?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has it all wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and not for the first time. Both at Hull and Camberwell I said that there were right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were inciting industrialists to do this. To their credit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither side helps itself by merely shouting at the other. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: I was going on to say that, to their credit, most industrialists had resisted this incitement.

Mr. Heath: The First Secretary in his speech made specific accusations against my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) which he has been afraid to make this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He has generalised. He knows perfectly well that he is only trying to find an alibi for his own failures by seeking to accuse this side of sabotaging his policy. Will he either withdraw those accusations or make them specific?

Mr. Brown: To make them perfectly specific, I think that what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said, addressed to the housewives, and I think that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said,


addressed to the business men, were both incitements to sabotage policies that are in the interests of the country.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a grotesque distortion of the case made from this side, and will he withdraw those accusations against my right hon. Friends?

Mr. Brown: I should like to add another. The right hon. Gentleman himself should stop hopping around from one foot to the other.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am being addressed on a point of order.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether it is in order for an hon. Member to say of another hon. Member in this House that action taken by the other hon. Member is designed to bring about sabotage? How can an hon. Member accused of sabotage be regarded as an hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is a place for the cut and thrust of debate. The Chair will rule when the cut and thrust of debate has exceeded the bounds of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBNORMAL CHILDREN (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for transferring the responsibility for the training of severely subnormal children from the Ministry of Health to the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
None at present, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied Friday's debate? Since the Prime Minister is in Moscow, he will, perhaps, have the opportunity of studying in broad terms Russian experience in this field, which is one from which we can learn something.

Mr. Brown: We have certainly studied Friday's debate, and there is a good deal

to be said for keeping this matter under review, but one must make any change which may be in the interests of the children only when one is clear that it is in their interests. That is why we are not changing at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME CIVIL SERVICE (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister which members of the Committee on the Home Civil Service have served in administrative posts in Scotland; what posts these were; and which members have taught in a Scottish school, college or university.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Mr. Grimond: As Scotland has contributed enormously to the public service and has very special problems, will the First Secretary look at this matter again?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should not think that there is any need, for the work this Committee has to do, to have a specifically Scottish civil servant. Lord Fulton is himself a very distinguished Scot, both by birth and education.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN SCOTLAND

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland is empowered to consider the desirability of devolving some functions of government from Whitehall to Edinburgh.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but he will realise that the purpose of the Commission is to review local not central government.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can hardly wait to read the terms? When they come, I hope that they will not prove a disappointment to the North.

Mr. Brown: I am sure that they will be well worth the wait.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Financial Secretary leaves us, may I raise this point? In answer to Question No. 3 today he said that he had nothing to add to the Answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. The Answer given yesterday was a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell). The hon. Member first tabled his Question on 16th February for an Oral Answer tomorrow by the Minister of Agriculture. Had it stayed on the Order Paper as an Oral Question for answer tomorrow, we would have had the opportunity of questioning the Minister on this most important point.
Unfortunately, for reasons best known to the hon. Member, he altered it from an Oral Question for tomorrow to a Written Question for yesterday. Consequently, when my Question, which was originally tabled 16 days earlier, namely, on 1st February, was reached today, the Treasury Minister was in the comfortable position of being able to duck any serious questioning. This is not the first time that a set of circumstances of this sort has occurred with reference to the Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not the first time this has occurred with reference to Questions on agriculture. There was a very parallel episode over the Apple and Pear Order—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will pursue only the single point of order he has and not go into history.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. My third point is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) tried to raise a similar matter in a Committee this morning and was ruled out of order there. We are in the difficulty that hon. Members on this side of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member was referring to something which happened in a Committee this morning. That is quite out of order.

Mr. Wells: That was a slip of the tongue, Mr. Speaker.
My point of order, in substance, is that hon. Members seeking to raise questions on agricultural and specific horticultural

topics are being flouted by members of the Government by having Written Questions put down after Oral Questions are tabled.

Mr. Hazell: Further to that point of order, as my name has been brought into this matter. My Question was for Oral Answer and presented on Friday, but the Table Office made a mistake. I received a written apology from the Table Office for putting the Question down as one for Written Answer.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Wells: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, has given that explanation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is nothing to with draw. The Question was on the Order Paper as a Written Question and hon. Members on this side of the House were unaware of this chain of circumstances. That does prevent—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) to conclude.

Mr. Wells: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, for his explanation. Naturally, our personal relationship in desiring—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member and I both wish the best for British horticulture and it would be a good thing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know of the hon. Member's keen interest in horticulture, but he must pursue only his point of order and not start a debate on horticulture across the House. I think that I have heard enough—

Mr. John Hynd: Mr. John Hynd rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, (Mr. John Hynd) will wait until I have dealt with this point of order. I do not think that I need help on this one.
Hon. Members do suffer from time to time from the way in which Questions appear in various forms on the Order Paper, but this is not a question for the Chair unless the rules of order governing Questions are in some way infringed. I listened to the hon. Member for Maidstone with very great interest, but nothing he said raised any point of order for the Chair.

Mr. John Hynd: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) made an imputation of collusion against my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) and against the Government? In those circumstances, should he not withdraw that?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order on a point of order which is not a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am almost tempted to rule the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), who raised the point of order, out of order. I did not see any imputation in what the hon. Member for Maidstone said which called for a withdrawal. I understood from what the hon. Member said that he accepted the explanation by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hazell) as to what took place. I hope that we can move on now to the business of the day.

DEFENCE REVIEW

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, I will make a statement about the defence review.
The House will recall that, on taking office 16 months ago, Her Majesty's Government set themselves to halt the runaway growth in Britain's defence expenditure by planning to limit the size of the defence budget in 1969–70 to that of 1964–65—or £2,000 million at constant prices.
As we stated in last year's defence White Paper, we assumed responsibility for forces which were seriously over-stretched and in certain respects dangerously under-equipped. It has been an equally important objective of the defence review to bring our commitments into balance with the manpower and equipment we could afford to have. We have already done better than the financial target of £2,000 million in the estimates for 1966–67, since they represent only £1,972 million at 1964 prices.
Part I of the White Paper indicates how we plan not only to stay within the same financial ceiling in three years' time, but also to undertake a major

programme of re-equipment, and to reduce the over-stretch from which our forces still suffer. In order to ensure the achievement of these objectives we have had to make a new assessment of the part which our Armed Forces should play in supporting our foreign policy in the 1970s, and of what rôle Britain should play in world affairs. It has been essentially an exercise in political and military realism.
The results may be summarised as follows. Broadly speaking, in cutting the previous Government's planned expenditure by 16 per cent., or £400 million, we have achieved three-quarters of our saving by getting better value for money and only one-quarter by reductions in our military capability. In order to reduce overstretch we plan to cut our tasks overseas and then to keep a larger proportion of our forces in a home station and fewer abroad, and to rely more on reinforcement by air in an emergency. This has meant certain changes in our current political commitments overseas.
We plan to reduce substantially the deployment of our forces in the Mediterranean; from 1968 we shall give up the Aden base and confine our presence in the Middle East to the Persian Gulf; in the Far East we shall cut the level of our forces once confrontation is over; and, within a few years, we shall maintain no forces permanently deployed in the Caribbean or Southern Africa. We shall be able to keep our forces in Germany at the present size only if the foreign exchange costs are met. We have made it clear that, in future, Britain will not accept commitments overseas which might require her to undertake major operations of war without the co-operation of allies; nor shall we attempt to maintain defence facilities in any independent country against its wishes.
Against this background we have taken certain major decisions on the equipment of our forces. The Canberra strike/reconnaissance aircraft must be replaced by 1970. The Anglo/French variable geometry aircraft, which is the core of our long-term operational and industrial aircraft programmes, will not be available until the mid-1970s. We have decided that the only way of bridging the gap is to buy the smallest possible number of F111As from the United States, and to


supplement these aircraft with the V-bombers which will be released from their current strategic role when the Polaris submarine force is fully operational. The foreign exchange cost of the F111A purchase will be met by sales of British equipment to the United States and to third countries.
We shall keep our existing carrier force as long as possible into the 1970s, but we shall not order a new carrier. In the light of the military tasks we envisage, and of the operational return we can expect from its cost of £1,400 million over the next 10 years, we do not believe that we should be justified in keeping a carrier force indefinitely. A new carrier could not become operational until 1973, when the rest of our carriers would be in the last phase of their active life. But by the mid-1970s we should be able to re-provide the necessary elements of the carriers' capability more cheaply by other means.
I believe that the majority of the House recognises that it has become essential to stop the automatic rise in British defence expenditure. As a result of their defence review, Her Majesty's Government have found a way of doing so without defaulting on Britain's commitments to her allies and partners in the Commonwealth, and without abandoning her influence either inside or outside Europe. Those who believe we have failed to bring our commitments and resources into proper balance must have the courage to say whether, in their view, the Government should spend more on defence, and where they will get the money, or cut Britain's commitments further, and, if so, where.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman, who, less than a week ago, was saying that he did not expect any resignations on the Navy side because of a defence White Paper, aware that it is neither practicable nor appropriate to reply point by point at this stage to his long and tendentious statement? Is he aware that not only this side of the House, but the whole of the country, will study carefully and anxiously the outcome and the implications of the Government's 15-month long review; but is it not already evident that the nature of some of the decisions and the timing of others has been forced upon the Government by

their own absurd preoccupation with fudging a figure of £2,000 million in 1969–70 regardless of the consequences for the morale of the Services or the defence of the country?

Mr. Healey: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made the last point, since he himself resigned from the previous Government because they did not fix a limit for defence expenditure.
On the question of resignations, on which the right hon. Gentleman is, indeed, an expert, I would like to say this. Nobody could have fought harder than my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to see that the Royal Navy got more equipment to use east of Suez, even though this meant that the defence budget should rise above the ceiling of £2,000 million; and I regret that my hon. Friend should have found it necessary to resign because the Chiefs of Staff, I myself, and the Government were unable to accept his advice.
I think that many of us in the House recognise integrity when we see it and that my hon. Friend has shown great courage in taking the step he has. Those who, like me, applaud his courage would like to know how the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) can remain a member of the Front Bench of a party shortly to stand at an election when his disagrees with its defence policy, its foreign policy, its social policy, and its economic policy.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to report to the House what the Chiefs of Staff were or were not prepared to agree to—in other words, technical advice—when hon. Members are not allowed to table Questions asking what advice is or is not given to a Minister by the Chiefs of Staff?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order yet.

Mr. Healey: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a comment on that. I am following a precedent set by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). It is a precedent which I have never regarded as a fortunate one and which I do not intend to follow on another occasion. But I felt it essential for the good of the future of the Navy


to make it clear to the Navy that the Admiralty Board did not assent to the decision which the Government have taken on this issue; and if I were obliged, as I think I was, to make the Board's position clear, I think that I was similarly under an obligation to make clear the views of the other members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.

Mr. Heath: Is the Secretary of State for Defence aware that he has made a statement which has the most momentous implications for the future for the defence of this country and for Britain's place in the world as a whole? It is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should have reduced such a statement in his answers to supplementary questions to the level of personal attacks, since he has made the statement not only against the background of the resignation of a Minister, but of the constitutional crisis of the resignation of the First Sea Lord.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the whole House, and, indeed, the country, will want to take part in the national debate which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday? Is he aware that when he speaks of the runaway nature of expenditure on defence there was, in fact, no increase in the proportion of the gross national product spent on defence in the last six years? Is he aware that what he is doing is reducing the amount of the gross national product spent on defence, which gives great pleasure to his right hon. and hon. Friends, but does not consider the defence of this country or its position in the world?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of this, he has made the political and foreign affairs handling of the problem of Aden, the Arabian Federation and the Middle East almost impossible, and that, in fact, he was not accurate in saying in his statement that he is carrying out all his commitments, because, by what he is doing, he is breaking the agreement which was made for the South Arabian Federation on its independence?
Further, is he aware that we do not believe that this is the moment to make a final decision on the carrier force in the middle of the 1970s, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is now doing?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that in his statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] The Secretary of State for Defence made a long statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that the purchase of the F111s, would be paid for by British sales, but does not he realise that this is not what the White Paper says? It says that they will be bought on credit and that British manufacturers will be allowed to tender for sales, which is quite different and puts the responsibility for paying for the F111 on a future Government.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take it that we shall judge the whole of this White Paper on the question whether it will ensure the future defence of this country and the Commonwealth and its position in the world?

Mr. Healey: I think that the country will be reassured by some of the elements in the right hon. Gentleman's questions, if that is what they were. No one will welcome more than we on this side a national debate on this issue. The Government have made clear their position both on the level of defence expenditure and Britain's rôle in the world. I hope that the Opposition will make their position equally clear and that those who disagree with the position that the Opposition then take will have the integrity to resign their positions as official spokesmen, as has been the case with one member of our Government.
On the question of the South Arabian Federation, the agreements which were made with the South Arabian States some years ago are not appropriate to an independent State of South Arabia, which, we hope, will come into existence as a result of constitutional decisions to be taken in the next two or three years, and those agreements will all lapse when the new independent State comes into being. There is no question here of "ratting" on our commitments. A country which wishes to become independent cannot assert the conditions for its independence as being exactly the same in the defence field as the conditions which it enjoyed when it was a dependent territory.
As regards the future of the carrier force, I am well aware that the party opposite never wished to take a decision on this matter ever. This is the reason why no new carrier has been laid down


in the last 20 years and why it is impossible for the Royal Navy to have a carrier—as would have made sense—in 1968 or 1969. I should welcome an opportunity to debate this in detail in the House with right hon. and hon. Members opposite and to justify the decision which the Government have taken not to build CVA01 and thereby to save £650 million on the plans of the previous Administration.
As regards sales of equipment to the United States and collaborative sales to third countries, we have set ceiling totals for sales which together will cover the total cost of the F111A. British manufacturers alone in the world will be able to tender for sales of British equipment to the United States, equipment which has been jointly identified by the two Governments, free from the 50 per cent. differential which now applies under the temporary balance of payments regulations of the United States and free, also, from the 12 per cent. and 6 per cent. differentials imposed by the Buy American Act.
If he has any interest in the interests of British exporters, the right hon. Gentleman should have had the grace to welcome these concessions which I have obtained from the American Government as presenting a great challenge and a great opportunity to British industry.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the crux of the matter is whether or not our rôle in the world has been altered and reduced, and that paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which deals with our rôle in the Far East, does not make at all clear that it has been reduced? The provisos appear to be mere common sense and, presumably, are in operation now.
Further, in his statement the right hon. Gentleman spoke of reducing our forces in the Far East once the confrontation is over. What confrontation is this? What change in policy does the Secretary of State envisage, and when does he think that this will come about?

Mr. Healey: I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman's view is about "ratting" on commitments to one's allies when they are under attack, but the view on this side is that we have an obligation to Malaysia and

Singapore which we intend to fulfil so long as Indonesia persists in its policy of confrontation. But we hope to negotiate an end to this confrontation at the earliest possible moment. I believe that recent events in Indonesia may have advanced the time when such a negotiated end to the confrontation will become possible.
I hope that the same view is taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who expressed himself in very robust terms on this issue when he was recently in Singapore. I know that this view is not shared by the defence spokesman of the Opposition, since he said that one could only explain the deployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, listen to this—he said that one could explain the deployment of British troops in Malaysia at the present time only by ascribing it to a state of national hallucination.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 12 years of Tory rule, this country spent more than £20,000 million on defence and that, in spite of the country being saddled with eight successive Tory Ministers of Defence, we have never had a fundamental review of our defence position until now? Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in spite of having spent £20,000 million on defence during 12 years of Tory rule, any carrier programme was ever formulated or carried out? Will he tell me at the same time—[Interruption.] Many questions have been asked from the other side. I am entitled to ask one or two.
Will my right hon. Friend, at the same time, tell the House, with reference to the proposed retention of our forces in Europe on the understanding that our foreign exchange costs are met, whether a time limit is to be imposed for the payment of those foreign exchange costs, or, otherwise, is it intended that we should withdraw some of our forces from Europe?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side will welcome what the Prime Minister has described as a national debate on defence, on all aspects of defence? Will he consult the Leader of the House to ensure that, when such a defence debate takes place in the House, we shall have ample


time—not merely one day or two days, but at least three days—in order to expose the deficiencies of the other side?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked to preserve the cut and thrust of debate. The cuts should be short cuts. The thrusts should be short thrusts.

Sir K. Pickthorn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—in remembering that this is not a debate, that these are supplementary questions and answers, and that it is extremely difficult to see how those who ask and answer them in the manner we have listened to over the past half hour can be remembering that very important fact?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for the support which the right hon. Gentleman has given me in what I attempted to convey to the House a little more delicately.

Mr. Healey: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I can tell the House that the party opposite laid down no new carrier in its 13 years of office and that our existing carrier force was first laid down in the early years of the last world war.
It is my wish that we shall have the greatest possible opportunity for a prolonged debate on these issues. I am only sorry that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not found it possible to ask any relevant questions so far this afternoon.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the strategic bombers would be released for other tasks when the nuclear submarines were completed. Must not this mean that the A.N.F. is, therefore, dead? Must not this mean that the Government have no longer the intention of revising the Nassau Agreement, but are to keep the nuclear submarines for our strategic purposes? If so, may I profoundly congratulate the Government on coming to a conclusion that we put forward at the last General Election?

Mr. Healey: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but he has got it wrong again. What we propose to do, as we made clear a year ago, is to build four Polaris submarines. We have

offered, and maintain our offer, to assign them to an Atlantic nuclear force irrevocably for the duration of the alliance? [An HON. MEMBER: "What for?"] The hon. Gentleman has asked that question many times and has had it answered as often. Whether or not our allies wish to pursue the idea of a collective nuclear force still remains to be seen.

Mr. Sheldon: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ability to keep defence expenditure within the limits in which he was constrained, may I ask whether he does not realise that there is considerable disappointment at our continuing rôle east of Suez well into the 1970s? He mentioned that British arms manufacturers will be allowed to tender for sales to the United States. What assurance has he obtained that sales will actually be made?

Mr. Healey: I know that some of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members opposite, including some on the Front Bench, are disappointed that Britain intends to maintain some military capability outside Europe. I shall welcome a debate on this matter and expect it to range widely inside both parties as well as between them.
In reply to my hon. Friend's second question, I point out that, as a start towards meeting this target, the American Government will this week be inviting tenders for the supply of naval auxiliaries for the United States Navy to the value of 50 million dollars and that those dollars will all be paid, if the tenders are successful, before we start paying dollars for the F.111A.
There are also a number of other items of equipment which have been identified and for which tenders will shortly be invited and bid for by British industry without discrimination.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is it not true that the reduction in the number of our overseas bases is by no means the same thing as a reduction in our present political commitments overseas? On pages 2 and 3 of the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman says that political commitments overseas must be reduced. Will he say which commitments the Government are to give up?
Secondly, what tactical nuclear weapons will be available to B.O.A.R. in the next


few years? Will these be able to be used without express permission from the Americans?

Mr. Healey: The British forces in Germany have never had any tactical nuclear weapons which have not been subject to the control of the United States Government. That was the situation throughout the period of office of the last Government.

Sir Richard Glyn: Sir Richard Glyn indicated dissent.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but I notice that several right hon. Gentlemen who were previously Ministers of Defence nodded agreement with me.
The hon. Gentleman will find a statement on the reduction of commitments in the second part of Part I of the White Paper.

Sir Richard Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: That notice has nothing to do with these questions.

Mr. Bellenger: Paragraph 24 says that it is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade. Can my right hon. Friend say something more about the Singapore base? Does he envisage in the foreseeable future the closing down of the base and in the meantime altering the rôle and the equipment of the base, which was mainly built for warships?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear to all the allied Governments concerned that we would wish our forces to stay on in Malaysia and Singapore so long as the independent Governments of those countries wish them to do so on conditions which meet our military requirements.
In case the time develops in the future, perhaps when confrontation is ended, when the Governments of those countries no longer wish our forces to stay, or wish to fix conditions which we consider unacceptable, I have already begun discussions with the Australian Government about the possible provision of alternative facilities in Australia. But I make it clear that, in such a case, the size and nature of the forces we maintained would be considerably different from those we plan to

maintain even after confrontation in Malaysia and Singapore.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Apart from a few hundred miles around air bases, does not the right hon. Gentleman's decision on aircraft carriers mean that our surface forces in the mid-1970s will be left without any surface-to-surface weapons except those with horizon range? Is not he taking a considerable risk in the uncertain world of the Far East and the uncertain pressures which are developing?
Is it not honourable for the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and for the First Sea Lord, in view of these facts, to resign—and much more honourable that they should do this than when the Prime Minister resigned over the question of National Health Service charges?

Mr. Healey: We plan to phase the carriers out by the mid-1970s and to provide the Navy with surface-to-surface weapons which are not now in the programme. After a careful study of the theatres in which our forces may be required to operate under threat, we are satisfied that it will be possible to provide protection for our Fleet and shipping in the 1970s from land bases with aircraft that we shall then have. I shall be glad to develop that in detail in the debate.

Mr. S. O. Davies: As the purchase of foreign aircraft will have a damaging effect on employment in the aircraft industry, what immediate steps are the Government taking to provide employment for those displaced?

Mr. Healey: I have made it clear in the White Paper that the military aircraft programme which we plan for the next 10 years will provide adequate production of military aircraft for our aircraft industry on which to build a viable civil aircraft production programme as well.

Mr. Sandys: The Secretary of State said that the existing agreement for the protection of the South Arabian peninsula would no longer be applicable on the independence of the South Arabian Federation. In 1964, when representatives of the Government of the Federation asked for independence not later than 1968, they coupled this with a request that Britain should conclude a new defence agreement for the protection of the Federation after independence.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as Colonial Secretary, I, on behalf of Britain, agreed to that request? Can he now give an assurance that this promise that we would conclude a defence agreement for the protection of the South Arabian Federation after independence will be honoured?

Mr. Healey: A large number of promises were made by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary with a Government of South Arabia which has now disappeared. There is a completely different Government there now. Of course, it is open to those with whom we negotiate to state the terms on which they would like to reach an agreement, but it is also the duty of the British Government to decide what the British interests are in the agreement that is finally reached.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only did the former Administration fail to build carriers, but had no hesitation during the whole period of its office about cooking the defence books of the nation, not just in respect of carriers? Can he say whether his discussions with the Australian Government about the base in Western Australia have reached the stage of planning, having regard to the fact that confrontation against Malaysia could end at short notice and that Singapore could invite us to leave the base? As it would take such a long time to build a base, has he started negotiating about it already?

Mr. Healey: Negotiations in the strict sense of the word have not yet begun, but, for the first time, when I was present in Canberra a fortnight ago the Australian Government agreed to discuss with technical experts on the British side the possibilities of providing facilities for British forces in the 1970s. I made it clear in public, as well as in private, that if we were unfortunately required to leave Singapore and Malaysia earlier than many people now expect, if there was nowhere else for us to go, we should have to go home.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer a question about the aircraft carrier? In Part II of the White Paper the aircraft carrier

is defined as the most important item in the Fleet for offensive and defensive action. In Part I it is said that the changes to achieve a major cut in expenditure have been made without any loss of military efficiency. How can those two statements possibly be reconciled?

Mr. Healey: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the note which prefaces Part I, he will see that Part II refers to the situation next year, while Part I refers to the situation 10 years hence. It is true that at the moment the carrier is the element round which the whole of the Fleet is built and to reshape the Fleet so that it can play its necessary rôle in the security of the nation without carriers is a long-term job. This is why I am most anxious that the existing carrier force should continue to operate for as long as possible into the 1970s so that we can assure ourselves that we have made adequate reprovision for those elements of the carrier capability which will still be required within the reduced tasks which we then envisage.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, most of us on this side of the House would like to see far more drastic cuts than are proposed in the White Paper? Is he aware that the £52 million increase on last year is an increase on the highest total ever spent? Would it not be better to carry out his own wishes, which were to cut commitments—for he said that he could not otherwise cut the £400 million—and spend the money on better housing and social progress instead?

Mr. Healey: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the increase to which he refers is more than accounted for by the increase in the pay of the Armed Services, and I believe that our soldiers, sailors and airmen fully deserve the rate for the job.

Sir A. V. Harvey: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the carriers in the immediate years ahead to be manned with air crew? Why should naval officers volunteer for a branch of the Service which they know is to die in a few years?
Secondly, will he bear in mind that what he said about the United States ordering British equipment is not reassuring? Why does he not get the Americans


to place orders at the same time as he orders the F111? From past experience, there should be direct trading and not just tendering.

Mr. Healey: I do not want to minimise the problems which will arise in maintaining the morale and efficiency of the Fleet Air Arm for another 10 years. This is one of the most important questions which we have to consider. One of the reasons why the First Sea Lord thought it wise to retire now rather than in August was so that his successor should start from scratch now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to help the Navy to face the new situation which it would have had to face at some time or other.
Let me point out that many countries are now running down carriers and have no intention of building others. This is true, for example, of Australia, Holland and Canada. This is a problem which has been solved in many countries and which can be solved here. What I would say to members of the Fleet Air Arm is that the strongest case for them to maintain their current rôle as long as possible is if they believe, with the Admiralty Board, that it is necessary to spend some years in reproviding for the carriers' capability before the carriers are finally phased out.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second question, I wish that we had some items of British equipment which were as attractive to the United States and other foreign Governments as the F111A has been to us. It is a question of taking time to discover items of equipment which can be in terms of performance and price. All too often in the past British weapons have been designed with no attention whatever to the requirements of a possible market abroad.

Mr. Steele: On a point of order. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a new departure that we should have a long statement and so many questions and answers about a White Paper which is to be debated the following week?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is a difficult decision. I regarded the statement as important and the reaction of the House and the number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sought to put supplementary questions were evidence of the importance

with which the House regarded it. However, I ought to call the attention of both sides of the House to the length of the questions and the answers which has precluded me from calling many hon. Members who have felt that they had a right to question the right hon. Gentleman on the White Paper.

Captain Litchfield: On a point of order. Can I have your advice, Mr. Speaker? Is it proper for the right hon. Gentleman to seek to put words into the mouth of the First Sea Lord which he himself has not uttered?

Mr. Speaker: That is a criticism which the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chair cannot enter into it.

Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the House is very anxious to hear the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)? Can we not get on with that?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House will not be unaware that I, too, have that in mind.

Sir G. de Freitas: May I ask my right hon. Friend to say something more about the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft? In view of the enormous potential importance of this aircraft, will he try to press on with this programme, even if General de Gaulle dismantles N.A.T.O., as he threatens?

Mr. Healey: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I have already arranged to meet M. Messmer, the French Minister of Defence, to further the programme of this and the Jaguar aircraft and certain other collaborative projects. We plan to meet, on a date still to be fixed between the middle of March and the middle of April, to discuss these matters.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: It is an old and generous custom of the House to permit a Minister who has resigned to explain his position in a personal statement. I am grateful to the House for this opportunity.
I begin by wishing my successor well. As he knows, it was my strongly expressed hope that he would succeed me. He has already earned, and will certainly


continue to receive, the full confidence of the Navy and he can be sure that in what I have to say now I shall do my utmost not to make his difficult task more difficult still.
I am afraid that he will feel severely the loss of the advice and support of Admiral Luce, whose help to the Admiralty Board and to the Navy and to myself personally I would regard as irreplaceable. One would have thought it impossible that the Fleet's long-held respect for Admiral Luce could be enhanced, were it not for the announcement which we have just heard this afternoon.
Anyone who has had, as I have had, responsibility for the management of the Royal Navy will always feel proud and grateful. I left with profound regret. Nevertheless, as I propose to show, decisions on defence have been taken by colleagues whom I respect, and who have treated me with kindness, which leave me no alternative but to resign.
I shall try to show that the approach to the Defence Review has been mistaken, that the proposed cuts in resources are not matched by the proposed cuts in commitments and that the result will be strain on the Armed Forces, or dependence on the United States beyond what this House should accept.
The principal mistake in the handling of the Defence Review was commitment to a world rôle with a presence east of Suez, and also to a budget of £2,000 million, before the review began. This was a very strange thing to do. No previous studies have been made to find out whether the two aims were compatible. It was simply assumed that they were and throughout the review the assumptions were never seriously challenged.
The figure of £2,000 million was a purely artificial one, simply a statistical projection of the cost of defence in 1964–65 into 1969–70. After it had been laid down the overseas Departments earnestly studied what should be our minimum commitments in the 1970s and the Ministry of Defence earnestly studied what would be the most economical way of meeting those commitments and then both came up with the figure which the Treasury first thought of.
The fact is that we have only to look back over the years of administration of

the previous Government to see that far stricter Treasury control was needed over our defence expenditure. Experience has now shown that there is danger in the opposite direction, too, in laying down a defence budget too early and too rigidly before working out its implications in foreign policy and defence. For one thing, it immediately inhibits any considerations of a budget of less than the stated sum. Surely, never in the whole history of public administration has a Department been offered money by the Treasury and not found the need for it. In practice, throughout the whole Defence Review no serious study has been given to a defence budget of less than £2,000 million related to reduced commitments.
The rigid fixing of the budget in advance placed a heavy strain on inter-Service relations. In the old days there was a dangerous tendency for the Services to gang up together and collectively present a demand for a defence budget in excess of their needs. This was bad, but, again, there is a danger in going to the opposite extreme, by rigidly fixing in advance a level compelling each Service to fight for its own vital interests by attacking the vital interests of the other Services. The result is that too little collective decision is given to the question whether the total sum is enough for the Armed Forces as a whole.
Not that the inter-Service rivalry was on anything like the scale that public opinion has been led to believe. It should be placed to the credit of the Admiralty Board that from the beginning to the end of the Defence Review it stoutly maintained that if we were to remain east of Suez we should need F111As for the job as well as carriers.
Now the sums of the defence review have been worked out and it is plain that £2,000 million is a bad figure for a defence budget—it is too small if we want to stay east of Suez and much too big if we do not. It lands us with an in-between presence east of Suez, which is still extremely expensive, especially in foreign currency, involves us in considerable risks, military and politically, and makes no equivalent contribution to our real national interest.
This, then, was the beginning of the trouble—a rigid laying down in advance of two incompatible objectives, a world


rôle and the £2,000 million. The inevitable consequence followed, cuts in resources out of all proportion to cuts in commitments. The House will not want me to spell out in detail the cuts involved in the reduction of £400 million in the planned budget for 1969. The House should note that not all these things are specified in the defence White Paper.
In the case of the Navy, they are much wider than merely the cancellation of the CVA01 but they are not specified. The cute apply to all three Services and amount to one-sixth of the total budget. Some of these reductions were to cut out waste. On the other hand, the cuts are overwhelmingly in the realm of equipment and weapons and not in the realm of administration, pay and pensions, which amount to one-half of the total budget. Thus, one-sixth of the total budget represents much more than one-sixth of the budget for arms weapons and equipment. It represents a very heavy cut indeed in military capabilities.
The most spectacular and controversial of the cuts was the cancellation of the new carrier. I would like to make it clear that my position throughout the defence review has been that if the Government insist on a world rôle east of Suez in the 1970s, then carriers are essential, and that my duty as Navy Minister was to fight for them.
At the same time, although not my direct personal responsibility, I did not hesitate to question whether we should adopt that rôle, whether that was the right rôle for Britain in the 1970s. As long ago as April, 1963, after visiting the Far East and the Gulf as deputy spokesman for the then Opposition on foreign affairs, I sent a report to the present Prime Minister expressing the same doubts about this rôle that I propose to express later on, and recommending a policy of gradual long-term disengagement. It seems to be perfectly logical and honourable to hold doubts about remaining east of Suez in the 1970s, but, at the same time, to say, as Navy Minister, that if the Government insist on remaining east of Suez in the 1970s, the Navy will need new carriers.
I will now like to explain the reasons why a viable carrier force is absolutely essential if we are to stay east of Suez in the 1970s and why the plan for carriers

given in the White Paper will not work. The four major reasons why the carriers would be essential are these. First, they enable us to exercise air power in any part of the ocean and not merely within an agreed manageable range of a land-air base. Outside this agreed range only carriers can provide the air strike and air defence to protect naval shipping or an amphibious force, or replenishment ships or merchant ships, and so on. Any military operation involving the use of such shipping must have carrier support, either British or American. That is agreed and no one disputes it. Outside of this range, without a carrier the Navy is unprotected. It is a "sitting duck" for any small country with a few Soviet bombers or missile patrol craft.
The second reason why carriers are essential if we are to stay east of Suez is that they provide essential reinsurance against the loss of a lang-air base. Land bases and carriers are both vulnerable. The most extensive analyses show that in Vietnam the carrier is less vulnerable and less expensive than the land-air base. Without the carrier one has all of one's eggs in one basket. Everything will depend on one air base. If it is sabotaged or mortared by guerrillas, one is left with no air cover at all.
The third reason why carriers are essential if we are to stay east of Suez is their deterrent power. This has been proved over and over again from practical experience and arises from the factors I have just mentioned. Phasing out the carriers will encourage our adversaries east of Suez at the very time that they will make it more difficult for us to cope with that challenge if it comes.
The fourth reason is that carriers are extremely flexible. They can provide air defence, ground attack and fulfil other functions which make them infinitely valuable for dealing with unpredictable occasions, as, again, has been shown in experience. Practically all our peacekeeping operations since the war were not, and could not have been, predicted
Those, then, are the reasons why, if we must stay east of Suez in the 1970s, we are, in my view, morally obliged to do so with a viable Navy and a viable carrier force. The cost is stated in the White Paper to be £1,400 million. This is misleading, because some of the


carriers' functions are essential and cannot be replaced by other means, which the White Paper points out. What the White Paper does not do is to cost the reprovisioning of the essential functions of the carrier. If that is done, the total cost of the carrier comes down to a small fraction of the £1,400 million; and that is a factor to be borne in mind.
The facts which I have stated are, I think, broadly agreed in the White Paper. The factor that the carriers are of vital importance and that some of their functions are irreplaceable is reflected in the statement in the White Paper that
…we attach great importance to continuing the existing carrier force as far as possible into the 1970s".
But it is the considered professional view of the Navy and the unanimous opinion of the Board that the carrier plan in the White Paper is unworkable. The Fleet Air Arm is already short of air crew. The cancellation of CVA01 is bound to be a heavy blow to the members of the Fleet Air Arm. We cannot help but expect a bad effect on recruiting and re-engagement. With the maximum financial incentives and the greatest possible support from the Royal Air Force it might be possible to prolong the death throes of the Fleet Air Arm by three, perhaps four, years, but into the mid-1970s, no; that is impossible.
Meanwhile, when the carriers are phased out, where is the protection for the Fleet and how can honourable men be expected to take the risk to be personally, directly responsible in the posts, for example, of First Sea Lord, or of Minister, for a plan which their most expect professional advisers tell them is unworkable? Suppose that it is possible to carry on the old fleet of carriers into the mid-1970s. There are still operational disadvantages; I will not detail them now.
I cannot feel that it is right that a nation which considers itself strong enough to take on a world rôle and to act as peacemaker and guardian over other nations thousands of miles away can, at the same time, say that it is too poor to afford the sailors with the ships and equipment that they need for the tasks they are ordered to carry out. All

the same, it would be absurd to say—and the White Paper is right to stress this—that the phasing out of the carriers will be the end of the Navy. The Navy will remain an essential part of our national defence. It will continue to offer a fine and honourable career.
The White Paper lists the new ships and equipment which will come into service in the years ahead. By "new" I do not mean that they have been added to the programme. I mean that they have not been taken out of the programme. Of the 10 items listed, all except two have always been in our future programme. Moreover, as I have said, the White Paper does not specify the full range of cuts either in the Navy or in the other Services.
So much for the cuts in capability. What now of the cuts in commitments and the limitations on our military action east of Suez which are held to justify these very substantial cuts? The White Paper mentions Aden. But it also states that we intend to maintain our treaties with Libya and Malta and our commitments to N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O., CENTO, in the Gulf, in Gibraltar, in Hong Kong, in the island territories of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, in Cyprus and in Singapore. The undertaking to remain in Singapore as long as possible commits us to the defence of Malaysia and Singapore and may make more difficult and postpone the end of confrontation which is an essential assumption behind the Government's whole defence planning. The White Paper also notes our growing commitments in Africa.
We must note, too, that the power of our possible adversaries east of Suez is growing. As the White Paper points out, the arms race is continuing among smaller countries. Other countries are following the lead of Indonesia, which, with Soviet help, has made itself a formidable military proposition in only five years. Thus, all the time the challenge is growing, the task increases and our resources dwindle. It is quite plain that the defence policy set out in the White Paper will open up a vast gap in the 1970s between what the Service men are expected to do and what they are given to do the job with.
I come to the review's last line of defence: our allies—that is to say, the Americans—will help us out. This


assumption is contained in the White Paper's statement that
…Britain will not undertake major operations of war except in co-operation with allies".
I hope that the implications of this statement will be very fully studied. First, it involves distinguishing in advance between a major military operation and a minor one. We promise only to undertake minor military operations alone. But the distinction is an extremely difficult one to make in advance. For example, how can we be sure that a minor operation will not escalate into a major operation? This is, in fact, how most major operations usually begin. Vietnam began as a minor operation in a small country.
Nor can we be sure that the minor operations which we undertake alone do not escalate. How can we? What do we do if they do escalate? Either we can withdraw and leave in the lurch those whom we have gone to help, which would be dishonourable, or we can ask our troops to go on fighting, having provided them, as the White Paper's own admission makes clear, without the resources necessary to enable them to get victory, which would be more dishonourable still. Or—and this is the heart of the matter—we could run to the Americans for help. But this means, in practice, that before even a minor operation is undertaken by us alone we shall need to get the agreement of the Americans and to make contingency plans with them in case things go wrong.
In practice, I believe that, unless we were to take unacceptable risks, the White Paper policy would mean virtually taking no action at all on our own initiative, even if appealed to by those whom we are supposed to be supporting. If they appeal for our help, we shall stand idly by. Alternatively, we shall act with the consent and support, or promised support, of our vastly more powerful ally, the United States, and the more we act the more we shall depend on their support. We shall be acting not as a power in our own right, but as an extension of United States power—not as allies, but as auxiliaries of the United States.
Even this assumes that we have solved the operational and logistic difficulties of interrelating American military support and carrier support with our own forces.

These practical difficulties have not yet been studied, nor has any suggestion been made that they should be studied. Nor is there any assurance that in a situation in which we might need American support it would be physically available. There would certainly be no American carriers available to us today.
More serious, however, are the political implications of what is proposed. How can we suppose that the Americans will always come to our aid and not ask us to come to their aid? They have come to the aid of the Australians with substantial military aid and, in return, quite naturally, the Australians have sent a battalion to Vietnam. In my view, the degree of military dependence involved in the Government's new plans would present serious problems even if there were solid political agreement with the Americans on the basic issues in the Far East.
But is that, in fact, true? In Europe, in the 1940s and 1950s, the situation was totally different. In a very minor way, I played a small part in helping the late Ernest Bevin to bring the Americans into an alliance in Europe at that time. But, of course, we and the Americans agreed about Stalin, and in that partnership there were European countries, too, with substantial military potential which helped as a counterweight to the overwhelming force, strength and influence of the United States.
Today in the Far East it is totally different. We do not agree with the United States about Communist China. We do not support the Formosan Government. We have a different emphasis in our interpretation of the problem of containing Communism there. Moreover, in military terms we are virtually alone in an absurdly unequal relationship with the vast power of the United States.
I have been, and still am, a warm supporter of the present Anglo-American Alliance. I respect and admire the United States. It would, however, be in the interests of both countries that if we stay east of Suez we should do so with a force with a substantial degree of self-sufficiency—that is, not wholly dependent upon the United States; a force including both F111As and carriers, a force costing substantially more than £2,000 million.
Should we, however, find more than £2,000 million for defence? If we insist


upon a world rôle, I am sure that we must. Had agreement been reached on this basis, my direct personal responsibility for the Navy would have been met and my personal position would, in my judgment, have been tolerable.
I am bound to say that I should still have had serious misgivings about a rôle so far beyond our economic strength. Surely, there would have been something totally incongruous about a nation performing a proud world rôle of peacekeeping on borrowed money with the sound of our gunfire drowned by the rattling of our collection boxes.
As I have explained, as has long been known to my friends, I have had doubts about this rôle east of Suez in itself. I seriously doubt whether, in the 1970s, with the growth of nationalism and racialism, any white nation, either alone or with others, can perform an effective peacekeeping task east of Suez. Already, the political and psychological obstacles to Western military deployment, let alone Western military action, in Asia and the Middle East are extremely strong. By the 1970s, they may well have become crippling.
While we sympathise with the United States in the harrowing experience which they have in Vietnam, ought we not also to learn from it and to draw the lessons of it? Should we not clearly take note that for all their gigantic military effort, the United States have so far been unable to contain North Vietnam—not China, but North Vietnam? May it not be, therefore, in the 1970s that the first white-faced soldier, sailor or airman who sets foot on the mainland of Asia or the Middle East will automatically unite against himself and his Government the coloured people whom he has come to help? Indeed, would we not feel the same in their shoes?
There is no specific mention in the White Paper of the policy of containing China. Is this one of the objectives of our policy or not? If it is, it should be stated. If it is not, that should be made quite plain to the United States, the Australians and the New Zealanders. Meanwhile, since, I think, the Government are not committed to that policy, I will not state my serious misgivings

about the policy of containing China on the narrow basis of two or three white nations.
Plainly, in the 1970s we shall still have some colonial responsibilities—for example, in Hong Kong—and also a moral commitment to the Australians and the New Zealanders to help in the defence of their territories. Apart from these things, however, we need have no commitment east of Suez in the 1970s, moral or otherwise, except as members of the United Nations.
That does not mean sudden or unilateral abandonment of obligations. We are not talking about this year or next year or even the year after. We are talking about the 1970s. It would be perfectly honourable and sensible for us now to decide to adjust ourselves to a changed world. In my view, it is no sign of vitality in a nation that it clings stubbornly to positions which it already holds. Indeed, not many years ago we criticised the French and the Dutch for a similar kind of stubbornness in the Far East.
A surer sign of vitality in a nation is an ability to take hard decisions to adapt ourselves to new circumstances. I should feel much greater faith in this country's future if we firmly decided now to withdraw over the years ahead from our increasingly exposed positions overseas.
The approach which I have suggested would make possible a defence budget below £1,800 million in 1969–70. This would help us immensely to put our own affairs in order. We should pay more attention to growing opportunities in Europe. We could extend our influence overseas out of the substantial saving of foreign currency which we could make.
If we decide to take some such course as this, now must be the moment to take the decision, because the Government's proposals to go east of Suez and to carry on east of Suez in this new joint basis will morally commit us to stay there for years and years to come. It is, in fact, a new commitment which we shall be taking on east of Suez. Therefore, if we are to decide this great matter, now is the moment to decide it and to make up our minds for ourselves.
The basic mistake of the Defence Review has been the classic crime of peacetime British Governments of giving the Armed Forces too large tasks and too few resources. The overseas Departments have laid down a proud defence rôle for Britain, the Treasury has laid down a humble defence budget for Britain, and the Service men "carry the can".
This has all happened before. It happened in 1939, when both parties were to blame. Admittedly, we then had a commitment that we could not possibly avoid, but then, again, we placed upon the Services a task far beyond the resources we had given them. I was myself a member of the first Territorial unit to land in France in September, 1939. We had field guns of an ancient design—converted 18-pounders. Equipped as we were, and trained as we were, we should never had been sent abroad on active service at all. Many of us had jobs which were quite unfamiliar to us. For several weeks, I was an officer's batman, and a very poor, patient officer he was.
Most of the men whom I knew then came back safely through Dunkirk. But more would have come back if they had had the tanks and air support which they needed and deserved, if they had not been let down by the nation, by Parliament and by their Service Ministers. I am convinced that the House will never allow that kind of thing to happen again.
Let us have a full and bold debate on all these great issues in the House and in the country, and God grant that we choose right for our nation.

PARLIAMENT OF SINGAPORE (GIFT)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a bookcase containing parliamentary and constitutional reference books to the Parliament of Singapore, and assuring Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]

COUNCIL NEGRI OF SARAWAK (GIFT)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Speaker's Chair to the Council Negri of Sarawak, and assuring Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF SABAH (GIFT)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Mace to the Legislative Assembly of Sabah, and assuring Her Majesty that the House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [Lords]

4.52 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Commonwealth Secretariat was conceived at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1964. The idea of some such central Commonwealth body was not new. I do not intend, nor is it necessary here, to give an historical summary of the various suggestions that have been made down the years for some such body. But when it had been raised previously, there had been misgivings on the part of some Commonwealth countries who felt that the activities of such a body might in some ways possibly encroach upon their sovereignty. The welcome given to the idea at the 1964 meeting was, therefore, the more striking.
The final communiqué of the meeting issued in July 1964, stated as follows, and I think that it is right to repeat the words, because they are the base upon which the structure has been built. It said:
Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire, which had been evident through their deliberations, for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments on the many issues which engage their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat".
Then come the functions as they envisaged them—
…which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all Member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies, both official and unofficial, in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields; and to help co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparations for future Meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and, where appropriate, for meetings of other Commonwealth Ministers. This Secretariat, being recruited from Member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.
The change of Government in Britain did not change the attitude of the British

Government towards the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The meeting of officials which was envisaged in 1964 was held in January, 1965, and a plan for a Secretariat was produced. That was subsequently considered by Commonwealth Governments, who all confirmed their agreement in principle. Officials met again in June to identify matters requiring specific decisions by Heads of Government at their meeting later in the same month. The reports of officials were considered and approved by the Heads of Government, and a unanimously agreed memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat was attached to their final communiqué It is that agreed memorandum which was presented to Parliament in July last year as a White Paper (Command 2713).
The Commonwealth Heads of Government thought it appropriate that Britain should be accorded the honour of acting as host Government to the Secretariat. We responded by offering to house the Secretariat in Marlborough House, which Her Majesty the Queen has graciously offered for use as a Commonwealth centre.
Marlborough House has come to be accepted as a centre for Commonwealth meetings in London and particularly for meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. It was felt to be particularly appropriate that the Commonwealth Secretariat should be housed in part of this elegant and historic building situated in the heart of London. The Secretariat is now established in Marlborough House, for all practical purposes as a guest of Britain.
Commonwealth Heads of Government have throughout laid great emphasis on the need to attract to the service of the Secretarait the highest possible quality of Commonwealth servant. The Commonwealth now has the services of Mr. Arnold Smith, one of the most senior and experienced members of the Canadian Diplomatic Service. His appointment as Secretary-General was unanimously approved by the Heads of Government in July last year, and so was that of his two distinguished Deputies, Mr. A. L. Adu, from Ghana, and Mr. T. E. Gooneratne, from Ceylon. Mr. Smith has appointed other staff from other member countries of the Commonwealth, and it is expected that, within the next few months,


the initial establishment approved in July will be complete.
Very commendably, Mr. Smith did not wait until all his staff were recruited before energetically embarking on the tasks laid down in the agreed memorandum to which I have already referred.
It was not to be expected that within the first few months of its existence, still not at full strength and with no collective experience behind it, the Secretariat would be able to undertake all the functions laid down in the agreed memorandum. But, as hon. Members will know, the Secretary-General and his staff have been far from inactive. There is hardly a function mentioned in the agreed memorandum which the Secretariat has not already undertaken, including one of the most important of its functions, the immense task of servicing, at very short notice, the meeting last month of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Lagos, and this they did to the satisfaction of all concerned.
The position of the Secretary General and the members of his staff is, therefore, one of great trust and responsibility. They will have in their care a great deal of confidential information about Commonwealth affairs. They must clearly be in a position properly to perform the duties allotted to them, and to bear the trust and responsibility placed on them.
I will deal briefly with the operative Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1(1) gives the Secretariat the legal capacity of a body corporate. The Secretariat has to be given this capacity so that it may undertake legal obligations and enter into agreements, and, if this should ever unfortunately prove necessary, to sue and to be sued in its corporate name.
Clause 1(2), read with the Schedule, confers on the Secretariat and the members of its staff similar immunities and privileges—with two exceptions to which I shall refer later—to those accorded to Commonwealth High Commissioners in London, and in other Commonwealth capitals, and members of their staffs. These privileges and immunities are those agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting last June, and they are specified in Annex "A" to the Agreed Memorandum.
During the several discussions on the establishment of the Secretariat, most

careful and lengthy consideration was given to the question whether the Secretariat and its staff should, in respect of immunities and privileges, be given treatment comparable with a Commonwealth High Commission and its staff. It was appreciated that such treatment could not be as of right, as the Secretariat is not the representative of one sovereign independent State. But the Commonwealth is a unique organisation, and Commonwealth leaders saw the Secretariat as a unique body within that organisation
at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and…a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth".
It is the servant of not one, but of 22, sovereign independent States, and answerable directly to them. It was considered to be of the greatest importance that this body should be treated in a special way, and this has been recognised by all parties in the House.
I have already mentioned the great stress which was laid by all concerned in the setting up of this Secretariat on the need to attract to its service the very best quality of Commonwealth servant, and I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that this is right if the Secretariat is to be a continuing success. It was realised that in most cases the individuals of the calibre and experience required would come from the diplomatic services of the Commonwealth itself, or would certainly be qualified for senior posts in those services, and that their duties would bring them into constant and direct contact with the diplomatic staff of Commonwealth High Commissions in London.
It was, therefore, felt that it would be right that the status of senior officers of the Secretariat should be equated with that of the diplomatic staff of Commonwealth High Commissions. Other Commonwealth Governments said that they would be prepared to accord to the senior officers of the Secretariat treatment comparable to that accorded to the diplomatic staff of High Commissions, an existing class of people to whom they are closely related, and with whom they will be in close and constant touch. The British Government felt throughout that this was the right course.
The senior officers of the Secretariat must also be permitted to carry out the


duties expected of them by Commonwealth Governments without fear or favour, without let or hindrance. The Secretariat will, as I have indicated, have in trust from these Commonwealth Governments a great deal of confidential information. To maintain this trust and the responsibility imposed on it, and to perform the confidential duties entrusted to it, the Secretariat must, clearly, be free from all other compulsion. It must be independent, and to this end the senior officers have been accorded immunity from suit and legal process, and other officers have been accorded immunity in respect of their official acts. The Secretary General, as hon. Members will see, has the power to waive this immunity in any circumstances.
There are, however, to be two important exceptions to this provision for immunity, and I should like to deal with these for a few moments because I think that they will be very much in the minds of hon. Members. The first is Income Tax liability. Paradoxically, the exception is necessary to ensure that, in practice, the staff of the Secretariat will be given the same kind of treatment in this respect as is accorded to the staffs of High Commissions in London. The staffs of Commonwealth High Commissions in London, who are nationals of the sending country, are exempt from United Kingdom Income Tax, but they are, of course, taxed by their own countries.
The same effect for senior officers of the Secretariat who are not United Kingdom citizens could be obtained by not levying tax at all and paying them a net tax-free salary appropriate for their rank and duties, but this would create a special class of Income Tax-free people, and this the British Government, as well as most other Governments, are anxious to avoid. It is therefore, proposed that the staff of the Secretariat should be paid the normal gross salaries appropriate to their rank and duties, and that they should be liable to British Income Tax on their salaries in the normal way.
But that would mean that the extra amounts payable by the Secretariat in paying salaries gross instead of net would all come back to the British Government as tax, and this would not be fair to other Commonwealth Governments, so it

has been decided by Her Majesty's Government that the Treasury will refund the tax collected on the salaries to the budget of the Secretariat—not, I assure the House, to the officers of the Secretariat—in addition to this country's contribution to the expenses of the Secretariat.
That may seem to be an elaborate procedure—and a good deal of thought has been given to the Income Tax position during the last few months—but it is desirable that a new tax-free class of persons should not be created. It was thought that this was important. The alternative to this, that is, an internal tax levied by the Secretariat itself, would be an unnecessary burden at this stage on the administrative powers of so small an organisation. The House will note that in the case of some international organisations internal tax is levied, but these organisations are fairly large. In this case the organisation is at this stage so small that it was thought that this would not be the appropriate procedure.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would deal with one point arising out of that, which was dealt with in another place. Do I take it that the contribution of £175,000 is exclusive of the tax money returned, that is to say, it is over and above the £175,000? Will he say a word later about the contribution to the budget, whether it is to be a fixed percentage, or a fixed sum?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said. The £175,000 is exclusive, and the sum which will be refundable in the shape of tax to the budget of the Secretariat will be over and above that.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the exemption with regard to Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax apply to investments in this country in British stocks and shares, or to all stocks and shares wherever they are domiciled, or wherever they come from, in Britain or outside Britain?

Mr. Hughes: Additional sources of income in this country which accrue to members of the staff of the Secretariat, over and above their emoluments, would be taxable in the ordinary way, but income which accrues to the staff from


overseas—that is, from the sending countries—would be free of tax.
I now turn to the second important question which concerns immunity from suit and legal process in respect of civil action for damage alleged to have been caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of, the Secretariat, or of a motor traffic offence involving such a vehicle, or in respect of arbitration proceedings relating to any written contract entered into by or on behalf of the Secretariat. I do not need to explain the thought behind these limitations in the privileges and immunities of the Secretariat; the House over the years has been particularly sensitive on this point, and rightly so. These limitations are acceptable to all other Commonwealth Governments.
Clause 2(2) brings the Act into effect from 1st July, 1965, the date from which it was agreed at the June meeting that the Secretariat would come formally into being. The purpose of giving the Act retrospective effect is to establish legal validity to anything already done in the name of the Secretariat and to give legal cover to exemption from such matters as customs duty already granted to it and its officers. However, hon. Members will see that it is not intended that retrospection shall prevent the enforcement of any liability which has been incurred by the Secretariat or its staff for the period between the establishment of the Secretariat and the enacting of this Bill.
I have now put before the House the main features of the Bill. It is one which is desired by other Commonwealth Governments, to give the appropriate status to a unique Commonwealth organisation which we all hope will contribute considerably to the strengthening of the Commonwealth association.
I commend this short Bill to the House.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: At a point of time when the Commonwealth scene is somewhat sombre, and when in certain respects and in certain areas of the world the Commonwealth is in disarray, many of us here who believe in the Commonwealth and who have faith in its future, especially as a bridge between the races, would have welcomed the opportunity of a rather wide-ranging debate to refute the defeatism which we

sometimes hear outside and to rebut the feeling of disenchantment with the Commonwealth which seems, wrongly and regrettably, to be gaining some currency in this country. Some people who criticise do so because they expected too much too soon.
I would dearly like an opportunity to make the case for the modern Commonwealth, and I know that most hon. Members who are now present would love to do the same, but I feel sure that if I tried to do that this afternoon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, because the Bill is no doubt too narrow to use as a vehicle for a Commonwealth debate, much as we should like to have one.
But the Bill does show that the Commonwealth is evolving—slowly, perhaps and with several setbacks—and the creation of a Commonwealth Secretariat is a very good example of this. The idea of a Commonwealth Secretariat has often been discussed over the years, and for various reasons rejected; and as the Minister of State has said, it was not until the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of 1964 that it received general support and approval. I believe that it will prove a constructive, forward-looking and important factor in Commonwealth relations in the years ahead. I had felt for some time that for all Commonwealth relations and information to be handled by the Commonwealth Relations Office was becoming, in a sense—because it was resented elsewhere—an embarrassment to Britain. The creation of the Secretariat, for which this Bill makes provision, means that the Commonwealth will in future take a much larger part in the handling of its own affairs. I am sure that that is right in 1966 and that we should welcome and encourage it.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will feel inclined to reply to what I am now saying—no doubt it depends on the trend of the debate—but, if he does, I should appreciate his advice on the question of the addition of a legal section, to which I referred at Question Time some time ago and which was discussed and recommended by the Commonwealth Law Conference at Sydney last year. I wonder whether that addition is to be made to the Secretariat and, if so, when?


The main object of the Bill is to confer upon the Secretary-General and the staff of the Secretariat the immunities to which their status and the importance of their diplomatic duties entitle them. This is probably the only opportunity that the House will have to say something about some of the people upon whom we are conferring special immunities. Many of us have already got to know the new Secretary-General, Mr. Arnold Smith, a senior and most distinguished Canadian diplomat, and his two deputies. I can only say that the Commonwealth is fortunate in their selection.
I first met Mr. Adu six years ago, in Central Africa, when he was advising the Government of Nyasaland, as it then was, on the development of the Civil Service there, and I have never forgotten the immense impression he made upon me at that time. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Gooneratne, but his record is a very distinguished one in Ceylon. Mr. Arnold. Smith is one of the most charming men I have met anywhere at any time. He is devoted to the concept of the Commonwealth, yet fully alive to its problems. He is constructive and progressive in his views and tactful and imaginative in the execution of his responsibilities. And as wives are always very important in diplomacy, may I say how fortunate the Commonwealth is that Mr. Smith married such a delightful one. It is more true of the Commonwealth than of almost any other institution that I know that if one likes the person with whom one is dealing one is more than half way towards solving the difficulty that one is discussing. No one could fail to like Mr. Arnold Smith, and he has already proved his value to the Commonwealth by his travels in East and Central Africa and by his smooth and successful organisation of the Lagos Conference. He and his staff, drawn from all over the Commonwealth, will have many such responsibilities in the future.
The Bill is designed to give them the facilities and privileges they need to discharge their duties effectively, and it is right that they should be accorded the same treatment and the same sort of immunities as are enjoyed by the diplomatic staffs of the Commonwealth High Commissions. The Bill makes two exceptions to the normal immunities—

one the motor vehicle exception and the other the Income Tax exception. Mr. Arnold Smith and his senior staff will have all the usual motoring immunities when they are driving their own cars, but the more junior staff—including the drivers of official Secretariat cars—will not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
The House has always been rather sensitive about the extension of this sort of privilege to new categories of people, which puts them above the ordinary laws of the land, and I am sure that the strict limitations of this immunity in this case will be welcomed by most hon. Members so far as the tax exception is concerned.
As I understood the hon. Gentleman, the members of the Secretariat will be paid their salaries gross and these salaries will be subject to United Kingdom Income Tax, but, in order that the British Exchequer should not make a profit from these payments, the total of the tax will be refunded, not to the individuals who paid it initially but to the budget of the Secretariat. This is, possibly, a somewhat complicated procedure, but I see the point of it and I make no complaint about it.
I am sure that it is right that an organisation which exists to serve the 22 Governments of the Commonwealth collectively should have broadly the same privileges in Britain as the missions of the 22 Governments of the Commonwealth already enjoy here individually.
The value of the Secretariat and of the Bill is that they give the Commonwealth an organisational form and structure which it lacked and which I believe it needed. I do not think that anybody wishes—certainly I do not—the Secretariat to assume executive powers or to develop into a sort of Commonwealth United Nations; but its creation does give a substance to the Commonwealth relationship which was missing in the past and which I believe will be beneficial and unifying in the future.
On this side of the House, we welcome the Bill and hope that it will have as quick and uncontroversial a passage through this House as it recently received in another place.

5.22 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said.


Like him, I would have preferred to turn this into a general Commonwealth debate, but we have to abide by the rules of order. Therefore, I shall limit myself to finding out what the Commonwealth Secretariat will be doing to justify our giving it these immunities.
The establishment of the Secretariat is a clear sign that the Commonwealth of today is completely different from the Commonwealth of only 20 years ago. I should like to be corrected in what I say if I am wrong. I hope that the Secretariat, in interpreting its terms of reference, will be willing to put suggestions to Governments whenever it appears to the Secretariat that some Governments have not caught up with the new organisation and terminology of the Commonwealth today. The Governments concerned could turn down those suggestions, but I hope that the Secretariat—working as it does in private—will be able to make such suggestions.
I would give an illustration by taking an example of terminology. Some people still refer to the Commonwealth as the "British" Commonwealth, although the title "Commonwealth" was designed some years ago to make it clear that this is a voluntary association of States in no way subordinate to Britain. From time to time we appear to confuse people by slipping into the terminology "British" Commonwealth.
At a reception after Sir Winston Churchill's funeral service I was asked by some Francophone African Heads of Government, including Mr. Tshombe, what was the constitutional significance of the fact that in the prayers in St. Paul's reference had been made to "people of this land and of the British Commonwealth".
They pointed out to me that one of the great differences between the French association with its former colonies and we with ours was that France still dominated the association not only in fact but in name, whereas we were only one of 22. I answered that there was no significance in this at all: it was simply that the Church of England had not caught up with the constitutional lawyers and that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what he said he must not do—widening the debate.

Sir G. de Freitas: May I not ask what the Commonwealth Secretariat will do in order to justify our giving it these immunities? Supposing a point had not been settled which was the sort of point which a Government could not bring to the notice of another Government because, for instance, it would give offence to another Government. Suppose we were asked, "Why do you call your Governor in Aden a High Commissioner, thus confusing a man who is really a Governor with a man who is a diplomat"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot see what this has to do with the single purpose of the Bill.

Sir G. de Freitas: If we are to give these immunities, surely we have to be satisfied that the Secretariat will do something in return for them. I seek to know whether they will be encouraged to make such suggestions as would otherwise never be made because Governments are frightened of giving offence to other Governments. I will not develop the point, but I seek to know whether they will be encouraged to make these subtle points which will never be made Government to Government but which could be put by anonymous civil servants for the future of the Commonwealth and to remove possibilities of misunderstanding. I will not mention any more of these points.
We have seen, even in the House, misunderstandings about the nature of the Secretariat's work. I remember one Question in the House which implied that the Secretariat was taking over work from the Commonwealth Relations Office. In fact, the Question asked what, in view of the establishment of the Secretariat, would be the reduction in the staff of the Commonwealth Relations Office. Of course, the Commonwealth Relations Office is like the Foreign Office: its task is to carry out Government policy, that is, the policy of the British Government. It serves only one Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, whereas the Commonwealth Secretariat serves 22 Governments.
One last point made by the hon. Member for Surbiton was that, in a small organisation—I understand that there are only seven senior officials in the Secretariat—quality is very important. I know one of the three senior


officers very well indeed—Mr. Adu of Ghana. He is a most distinguished civil servant who has served not only his own but other countries in Africa and the United Nations and who is in every way a remarkable man. The Commonwealth is fortunate that he is working for the Secretariat.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Like other hon. Members, I will be very careful how I tread, because I realise that this is a narrow Bill. I am glad that the Minister of State widened it a little to explain some of the background, which will be of use not only to us in the House but to others beyond. I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in welcoming the Bill as an addition to the structure of the Commonwealth.
It must be some satisfaction to the Secretary of State, because 20 years ago he and I, from approximately the same position, discussed this matter and wondered whether some such secretariat would not be useful to the Commonwealth. As the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said, it is a different Commonwealth today to what it was 20 years ago. There was in those days some suspicion—entirely unjustified—that some of the enthusiasts in the House were trying to construct something which had an ulterior motive.
It was, therefore, satisfying to the Secretary of State, as to all of us who are interested in the Commonwealth, that the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1964 took a sufficient interest to suggest that the Secretariat should be established. I am certain that it will further strengthen the Commonwealth association, and I join in the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Arnold Smith and his colleagues.
The House is rightly sensitive about the granting of immunities. We guard these jealously. I am glad to hear that the immunities proposed are the same as those applying to Commonwealth High Commissions. However, one point is not clear to me. Reference is made to "officers and servants". In the past some hon. Members have wondered whether these individuals should be seconded from

their own national diplomatic services or should be permanent officials recruited on their merits and taken into the Commonwealth Service with no national service to which to return. A case could be made out for either system, although today the latter is probably the best. I have always believed that the system of secondment has led to a cross-fertilisation which not only in this but in other instances has proved of the greatest use. I am not certain whether these seven individuals are permanent members of the Commonwealth Secretariat or have been seconded from their national services.
As yet, there is no such thing as Commonwealth citizenship. In this country one remains a British subject by our law. One remains a citizen of whatever Commonwealth country to which one belongs. Whether one day we will work towards the idea of Commonwealth citizenship I do not know and I appreciate that this is a difficult and dangerous path to tread because there are dangers which cannot be foreseen and which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that I hope the Secretary of State will make it clear whether the seven individuals have been seconded or are permanent members of the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Until the Minister spoke it was not clear whether the privileges and immunities would be the same for any citizens of the United Kingdom who are appointed to the Commonwealth Secretariat. I regret what I might call the levelling down of Commonwealth citizens who will have to endure the rate of taxation which we at present must endure in this country. Although I understand that the tax to be levied will be refunded to the Secretariat, it must not in any way discourage those who will take up these occupations.
I do not suggest that we should create a special privileged class from the tax point of view, but I am putting in a word for those who must carry out diplomatic functions in a country in which they pay the local taxation. Various forms of social entertainment are not entirely covered by the allowance and I am sorry


that these individuals will have to pay the full rate of tax. It is easy to say that they should do the job like the rest of us, but I trust that it will be remembered that they are carrying out these semi-diplomatic jobs and that on occasions they find these task difficult to perform.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Since entering the Chamber and looking through the text of the Bill, coupled with hearing your comments about what is and what is not in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is obviously not the day for long historical speeches. Considering what has been said in past years by my hon. Friends and I about Commonwealth matters, it is only right that a back bencher on this side of the House should utter a few sentences to welcome the Bill.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) spoke about the organisational form of the Commonwealth. This matter has been discussed and advocated for many years, notably by the first post-war Labour Government. The Bill is to be welcomed for that reason, recalling that at least 20 years, ago Lord Attlee took this line. The Commonwealth is indeed a particularly fluid organisation. Some call it dynamic.
The Minister of State referred to the suspicions of some Colonial Territories. A formal set-up along the lines proposed for the Commonwealth Secretariat could not be contemplated just a few years ago. Those past ideas have gone, particularly since the Secretariat is not based on London. It will convene conferences in, for example, Lagos. The last one was an extremely successful conference. Bearing in mind our difficulties in Rhodesia, we see that the Secretariat is able to serve the sort of purpose which was mentioned by the Minister and which Mr. Arnold Smith and his distinguished colleagues will be able to carry out.
The Minister of State spoke about the Ghanaian and Singalese colleagues of Mr. Smith. They are all men. We are fortunate in our choice of the Secretary- General because, Being a Canadian, he is midway between Washington and Paris, so to speak, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Johnson: In that case Mr. Deputy Speaker, I fear that the odd notes which I jotted down will have to be decapitated, truncated and almost amortised. I was able to say that there is a place for women in the Commonwealth Secretariat. This was mentioned in another place, and I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will refer to this if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In a debate such as this it is difficult to keep within the rules of order. I will conclude merely by saying that I believe in the Commonwealth, I believe in cementing the bonds of the Commonwealth and I believe that the Commonwealth Secretariat, with able people like Mr. Smith in it, will do that. I wish them a very happy future and all success in their endeavours.

5.37 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I rise to welcome the Bill and the setting up of the Commonwealth Secretariat as a body with a corporate identity. This is a major achievement. Considering how difficult it is to get hon. Members of this House to agree on certain problems, for 22 Commonwealth countries, comprised of different races, to set up this corporate body is an amazing achievement.
It is interesting to consider the powers which this corporate body will have. I always remember President Nehru of India saying that the Commonwealth was all the stronger because of its invisible links. I hope that this corporate body will bind those links even tighter together, but I equally hope that the organisation will not be too formal; the more informality there is in its operation the better. I therefore suggest that the co-operation which would be most successful in this organisation would be that of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I do not want to see the Commonwealth Secretariat taking over the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but it would be an enormous asset if the two could work together.
In the debate in another place the question of recruiting people to the Secretariat was discussed, along with the question of who would be given these


diplomatic privileges. It was pointed out:
This Secretariat, being recruited from member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th Jan., 1966; Vol. 272, c. 12.]
I would like to know the method by which these high calibre people are recruited. Is it done on an area basis? So far we have three major appointments, one from Canada, one from Ghana and one from Ceylon. Will we try to keep it on a Commonwealth area basis so that a really good representation from the Commonwealth is achieved?
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) spoke about the recruitment of women to the Secretariat. I was disappointed to learn that no women are to get this diplomatic immunity because no women have been recruited. I hope that they will be able to play their part in the future, as we have to remember that we have already had two women Prime Ministers in Commonwealth countries.
How will these individuals on the staff work in future? For instance, mention was made in another place of
…helping with the processing of Singapore's application for membership of the Commonwealth".—[OFFICIAL REPORT; House of Lords, 25th January, 1966; Vol. 272, c. 14.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not arise on the Bill.

Dame Joan Vickers: The gentlemen for whom we are asking for this immunity have done the work, and if we are to give them the privileges I should like to know just how their work will be done. If these individuals are to arrange conferences in future, how will they get their agendas together? Will this be a Commonwealth exercise, or will it be settled in this country—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must keep to the purposes of the Bill.

Dame Joan Vickers: When these people travel overseas to another country—because I hope that all meetings will not be held in this country—will their diplomatic immunities go with them?

What salaries are we to pay these individuals—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not arise either.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am having a rather difficult time.
In Part II of the Schedule, we read in paragraph 5(1):
Every senior officer of the Commonwealth Secretariat, who is a citizen….
Can we be told how many senior officers will get this immunity? Perhaps we could also be told their salary scales.
As other territories become full members of the Commonwealth, will they be able to joint this corporate body? For instance, when Fiji becomes independent, will it automatically become a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat, or will it have to apply to join?
I hope that what I have said about women being employed in the Commonwealth Secretariat and being given the same immunity as men will be specially considered, as I think they can be additional assets to the work of the Secretariat. I would like formally to welcome this Bill.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I congratulate the Minister on his lucid presentation of this Measure. My intervention earlier was not intended to unbalance my hon. Friend but to draw attention to one peculiarity in the Bill. Before turning to that point, however, let me say that I welcome the Bill, because I welcome anything that may increase the solidarity and effectiveness of the Commonwealth, which stands for the rule of law in international and in national affairs.
My criticism of the Bill is twofold. It contains no Interpretation Clause. There is nothing to indicate what the Commonwealth is. It is implied, of course, that it means the British Commonwealth of Nations, but there is nothing explicitly in the Bill, as there should be in any Act of Parliament, to indicate what the Commonwealth is.
The Schedule to the Bill mentions certain inviolabilities, of which there are three. The first is:
The Commonwealth Secretariat shall have the like inviolability of premises…


That is correct. Just as an embassy has inviolability of precises, so should this Secretariat.
The second is that the Secretariat
…shall be exempt from income tax and the capital gains tax…
It was on that point that I ventured to interrupt the Minister in order to find out whether that referred only to Commonwealth stocks and shares or to all stocks and shares. Does it apply to the stocks and shares envisaged by last year's Budget in this country? We are now dealing not only with Britain but with various parts of the Commonwealth, and the elements or entities in the Commonwealth which are having this benefit of inviolability from Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax should have that inviolability clearly defined.
The third inviolability is:
The Commonwealth Secretariat shall be exempt from duties on the importation of goods…
That, again, should be clearly defined.
I do not make these criticisms in an adverse way. As I have said, I welcome the Bill and anything that will increase the effectiveness and solidarity of the Commonwealth. This Commonwealth is a natural sequence and development from the time when we had the British Empire consisting of colonies rightly struggling to be free. They got their freedom, and became representative entities in the great Commonwealth. I shall not go further into the history, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only gave that little bit of history in order to say that in giving these inviolabilities and benefits and advantages of the Commonwealth we are doing a very good thing.
It is an anomaly that the more we benefit the entities—or whatever we may choose to call them—in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the more we develop them and give them individuality, the more we increase the solidarity of the Commonwealth. That seems to me to be an anomaly of a very beneficial kind. I therefore have great pleasure in offering these few words of welcome to the Bill.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I, too, welcome the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. It represents a new and exciting development in the history of the Commonwealth. It seeks to clothe with diplomatic status those who have already

become the civil servants of the Commonwealth. These provisions are necessary, first, to enhance the status of those who are called upon to serve the Commonwealth and, secondly, to give them the powers it will be necessary for them to hold if they are to discharge the obligations which the Commonwealth has placed upon them.
I welcome the two somewhat different diplomatic provisions—that relating to taxation and that relating to liability for civil proceedings in regard to damage caused by motor vehicles. They are very happy compromises and, in a sense, are the sort of compromise one would expect of any legal arrangement in regard to the Commonwealth. One example of compromise is that we have High Commissioners as opposed to Ambassadors, and we therefore expect to find somewhat different legal treatment when dealing with the Commonwealth than when dealing with other countries.
There are two matters about which I wish to ask. The first relates to the granting of diplomatic status. In the Schedule to the Bill in paragraph 10(3) there is the provision:
References…to the United Kingdom shall be construed as including references to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
This perhaps is a drafting point. There is not any reference in the Bill to the United Kingdom. I speak subject to correction, but since this body is to extend diplomatic immunity to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, the provision could perhaps be improved in Committee and we could put in some greater definition.
Very often when we grant diplomatic status questions are asked as to what reciprocity there is to be; that is to say, whether the same privileges are to be accorded in return. If the Secretary of State is to reply, I hope he will indicate whether it is the intention, as I assume it to be, of the 21 other Commonwealth countries to accord the same sort of diplomatic status to these Commonwealth servants that they are accorded in other Commonwealth countries.
Clause 2(3) specifically refers to the budget. It is that part of the Bill marked by a black line in order that another place shall not raise questions of privilege between the two Houses. The question was


asked in another place, what the contribution of this country would be. The reply was made that it would be £175,000, which represented a third of the proposed budget. I should like to know whether that is a percentage which will vary as the budget varies, or a once-and-for-all block grant of £175,000. I think it relevant to ask this particularly as the Secretariat, clothed with these powers, will, we hope, greatly extend its activities and we shall see a growing budget in the next two or three years.
I think it in order—I shall be told very quickly if it is not—before we grant power to any body to ask rhetorically what it has already done and, more pertinently, what it is likely to do? Can we justify the grant of these very extensive powers? This organisation came into being only in July 1965. All told, down to the humblest typist, I think the total staff is 35, but it has already held one meeting of Commonwealth trade officials and a second is to be held, which we hope will lead to a Ministerial meeting in May. It has already entered the diplomatic sphere by setting up a committee dealing with the question of Rhodesian sanctions and a sub-committee dealing with Zambia.
It therefore seems that this aspect of diplomatic immunity and certainly diplomatic status is of the very essence of the job the Secretariat is being asked to do. This Bill is most timely in that regard. As the Minister said, it was this body which organised the Lagos Conference and, so to speak, even before the introduction of this Bill, was given a supra-national character in relation to the rest of the Commonwealth. So much for the powers which it has already exercised, which clearly make the case for granting this measure of diplomatic immunity enshrined in the Bill.
I think that equally we shall see an extension of its operations both in the economic and political spheres which will make it essential that it should have the status envisaged by the Bill. As I think was said in another place, the diplomatic activities—after all it is diplomatic immunity that we are granting—and diplomatic exchanges which now take place between the Secretary-General and his colleagues and members of Commonwealth Governments are a vital part

today in international diplomacy. It is particularly important that this diplomatic status should exist at a time when two members of the Commonwealth have broken off relations with this country, and the same is also true in regard to Malaysia and Pakistan.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is now getting far too wide.

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try very strictly to keep in order. In regard to the individuals upon whom we are granting this status I re-echo what every hon. and right hon. Member has said in this debate. We could not be more fortunate in the Commonwealth than to have someone of the character and calibre of Mr. Arnold Smith as the Secretary-General. Within the British Commonwealth there are Smiths and Smiths and he is a good one.
When I visited Marlborough House and had discussions with members of the Secretariat I thought the heading of this Bill "Commonwealth Secretariat Bill", could not be more appropriate. There one meets within two or three minutes not only a Canadian Secretary-General but a New Zealand deputy, a Ceylon national in charge of the economic sphere, a Nigerian, a Ghanaian and representatives from practically every member country of the Commonwealth. I hope that these powers will enable the Secretariat to carry out and expand its duties in strengthening the Commonwealth and, to quote the 1964 communiqué, be:
A permanent expression of closer and more informed understanding.
It is particularly appropriate that it should be housed in Marlborough House, a very historic building last occupied by a most gracious lady who herself did a tremendous amount for the British Empire, as it was then, who was much travelled and beloved in many corners of the world. I hope this Bill will do something to indicate to the Secretariat that we wish it well and want to see that it has all the powers needed to discharge its functions.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate from both parts of the House, I welcome the Bill. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the


House for the fact that I was not present when my hon. Friend the Minister of State opened the debate.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) quite rightly said that it was a remarkable feat of statesmanship, understanding and diplomacy that people from 22 nations should get together and agree to set up the Secretariat. It is particularly fortunate that the Secretariat is here in London. We tend to take the Commonwealth for granted a great deal, both in this House and by the ordinary man in the street.
There are many other nations in the Commonwealth which no doubt would welcome the Secretariat in their countries. There are Commonwealth nations which are larger and some which have a civilisation as old as ours. There are many which have a climate far better than ours. Yet we have the Secretariat in London and by the Bill we are welcoming it and conferring on it the status of a body corporate.
The Bill exempts members of the Secretariat, and the Secretariat itself as a body corporate, from diplomatic immunity in respect of civil actions arising from motor accidents and proceedings for motoring offences. As members of the Secretariat will be living here amongst us, it is important not only that the House and Government Departments but that the ordinary public do not get at cross-purposes with them. The average British citizen, no matter what his political party and no matter where he lives, has a healthy dislike of official cars, whether they be Ministerial cars—I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are listening—whether they be mayoral cars, embassy cars, or Secretariat cars. The general public dislikes cars being on the road which operate under a law different from that under which all other motorists operate. To them these cars are something foreign and faintly sinister. If any incident takes place, the Press echoes this distrust felt by the ordinary citizen.
The last thing we want is for a minor official of the Secretariat to be involved in a motor accident, or to commit a motoring offence, and then to find that, although he might be willing to waive diplomatic privilege, under ancient Acts he is not able to do so. That would be the position, unless a provision is inserted

into the Bill. The whole Secretariat would have to waive its immunity, and there is some doubt whether it could waive it retrospectively.
I wonder whether this could not be extended to senior officers and their families, because there is no reason why these citizens of the Commonwealth would ever seek to use their diplomatic privilege to avoid the consequences of traffic accidents or motoring offences. This is a departure from most diplomatic practice, which has gone on possibly since Roman times, certainly from an Act of 1708, when motor cars were not foreseen. This is the first Measure which, in terms, excludes from diplomatic privilege actions of tort or criminal offences arising from motoring. The 1964 Act does not do it. I do not think that the 1950 Act, which relates to other international organisations, does it.
Although this is a very minor point in the Bill, it is one to be welcomed because of the precedent it sets and also because, when the Secretariat or any member of it is, through no fault of his own and from some minor reason, involved in an accident, or jumps the traffic light, or commits a minor traffic offence, he cannot claim to be in a separate class of motorist. Consequently, there cannot be any Press uproar and the public can accept him as a motorist who must obey our rules, as they must.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I hope that the House will forgive me if I strike a somewhat discordant note. I shall try, if I may go so far as to quote one phrase from the White Paper, to
begin modestly and remain careful not to trespass
on the points of order.
I have gained the impression, from listening to the debate and from hearing the House talking with its usual thinness and enthusiasm about the Commonwealth, that we are perpetrating one of the things that makes me feel that the U.K-ers—I must not use the word "British"; I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas)—still have their sense of humour, because they have welcomed the granting of diplomatic privileges to a Secretariat that emerged from a Commonwealth conference that caused us to lose Rhodesia from the Commonwealth and


which is an institution being built up after the Commonwealth has stopped meaning anything in the world.
It seems to me that we are now trying to institutionalise something which has failed almost completely in modern times. We are trying to give dipomatic privileges to a small "United Nations", an organisation which will probably conflict with some of the jobs which could be done much better by the United Nations itself. This effort at reviving in the last dying days of the Commonwealth an institution to try to keep it alive, giving it diplomatic privileges and developing at this stage a Secretariat with ill-defined duties, is a joke which has gone a little too far.
After reading the White Paper which was referred to by the Minister of State, with all its "ifs", "buts" and "possibilities", "guided by principles" this way and that, but containing practically nothing definite, no one, if he is honest, can fail to come to the same conclusion as I do. The moment has come when the House must pull itself together, particularly after the statements we heard earlier today, when it was shown by the conflict which has arisen over the defence of the Commonwealth that Britain is quite incapable of defending the Commonwealth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. This does not arise on the present Bill, which deals only with two small points.

Mr. Harrison: The granting of diplomatic privilege to an institution which is set up to maintain an non-existent Commonwealth seems to me to be a farce which is going almost beyond a joke. I hope that the Government will think very seriously before they go much further with this. I ask them to consider whether they are not making this country, by giving these powers and exemptions to the Secretariat, a laughing stock.

6.8 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: First, may I say how truly delighted I am that my first appearance at this Dispatch Box should be on a Commonwealth subject. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede that we have worked together in the interests of the Commonwealth for many years past. For this reason, I was perhaps all the more

distressed at parts of the last speech we heard, but I had better try to remember my rôle and speak on that a little later.
It is lucky that the Chair has been so severe, because any sort of controversy is almost totally precluded. In some way, I rather regret this, because in my usual position on the back benches I rather enjoy controversy. I realise, however, that I shall in any event be granted a certain amount of indulgence by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) was allowed to say a few general words about the background of the Secretariat, and in view of the last speech we have heard, I hope that I shall be forgiven one general observation very much along the lines of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton.
In this debate and generally in talking about the Commonwealth we are in danger nowadays of falling into the second of two traps. Over the years, there has sometimes been a tendency to expect more of the Commonwealth and to overrate its possibilities. Many of us have been deluded at times on that account. Now, there has been an altogether too dramatic conversion to down-rating the Commonwealth and granting it no influence at all in the world today. It is for this reason that I regard the setting up of the Secretariat as a positive step forward.
There is one matter of history in connection with the setting up of the Secretariat which is of importance in connection with our thoughts on how we see it working. In earlier times, it was usually the British who wanted to create some sort of organisation which would integrate the Commonwealth centrally, and the other Commonwealth countries at that time were, quite naturally, suspicious that this might tend to undermine the advance to sovereignty which they wanted to achieve.
Nowadays, as we have heard, the boot is on the other foot. It is the other Commonwealth countries which look for greater organisation in the Commonwealth, for no more noble motives, I suppose, than we used to have, save that, naturally, they feel that their numerical importance is such that their influence in the Commonwealth entitles them to a greater say in the central direction and


organisation of it than they have had in the past. I think that it is for this reason that we have been able to secure agreement so readily on the setting up of the Secretariat and the rôle which it has to fulfil.
I differ on one point from the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) in that I hope that the Secretary of State will not yield to the invitation to be more precise about the rôle which the Secretariat has to play. This is an extremely tender plant and, if we try to overload it at the beginning, we may cause to arise fresh suspicions of the sort which have now died away. All the words of the White Paper in this respect are very wise. Whether we like it or not, this is an innovation, and it is a matter very much of "softly, softly" if we are not to create suspicions which, I am sure, it would be a pity to create.

Sir G. de Freitas: It was for that reason, to show that there was no need to suspect Britain of trying to dominate the Secretariat, that I deliberately referred to points which could be critical of Britain.

Sir F. Bennett: If that is the line, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). But we are also British in this House, and in these matters we must be careful of our own sensitivities as well as of those of other Commonwealth countries.
I hope that, at least in the initial stages, the Commonwealth Secretariat will move very slowly—this is the whole purpose of the White Paper—lest we cause more discord than concord between the various countries concerned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude. He is now going very far from the Bill.

Sir F. Bennett: I was only trying to answer a point which was made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and at that point, if I may say so, I was replying to an intervention.
I come now to a matter of fact which I should like the Secretary of State to clarify. I had thought that it was intended that the Secretariat should do some of the work previously done by the C.R.O. in matters of information and

organisation, and, therefore, it is not quite true that the C.R.O. has always been completely the servant of the United Kingdom in this respect. Is it not a fact that, in the past, it has fulfilled a certain rôle in connection with information and the organisation of conferences which will now be taken over, or which to some extent has already been taken over, by the new Secretariat?
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) reminded the House, on such a happy all-party occasion, that both sides have done a great deal together over the years to achieve this sort of end.
I should like a little information—I have not been able to glean it from the Bill, after a very careful study of it—on whether the senior and other officials are meant to be permanent in the same way as other civil servants in other international bodies become, so to speak, international individuals, although they are to be seconded from their Governments or come as volunteers from other countries and be liable at any time, at the wish of their Governments, to revert to their national rôles. This is an important question to be answered at this stage, because it must affect our view of the privileges and immunities which we expect these people to have.
After your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know how far I can go in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), but, as you allowed each of them a word or two in support of the female element in this organisation, perhaps I may add my earnest plea to the Secretary of State to consider this matter carefully. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the present Prime Minister of the largest country in the Commonwealth is a woman and that the Leader of the Opposition in the second largest is a woman. There are one or two notable women ambassadors as well. This is a question to be taken quite seriously for the future.
I hope that I shall not be thought in any way unsympathetic to someone we all like very much when I say of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who is not in his place at the moment, that I at least found


it rather difficult to understand the somewhat complex questions which he put. I can only hope that the Secretary of State has been more successful in that effort than I have been.
In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), I can only say that, as I understand it, it is only the senior officers who are to have this rare exemption in respect of motor traffic offences. In view of the doubts which the hon. Gentleman cast on the matter, I should like the point to be cleared up. I believe that there is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, an innovation here, because these senior officers will be very much in the same position as a High Commissioner or Ambassador in any other country, and we should, indeed, be making an exception if we did not accord them the same privileges as are accorded to other people of similar rank.

Mr. Oakes: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that only the senior officers will have this privilege, but I was pointing out that many embassy representatives, including even junior members of the staff and the Ambassador's household have these privileges. This would not be so as regards the Secretariat.

Sir F. Bennett: Then we are not at cross-purposes.
I welcome what is proposed in the respect of the Secretariat, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that we were making a departure. I do not believe that we are, because it is expressly stated that only the senior officers will have diplomatic rank in this context, and the others cannot be compared with junior diplomats and the like at embassies because they are seconded personnel from their Governments without the diplomatic rank which would otherwise go with it.
I have worked very closely on Commonwealth affairs with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, and I was sorry that he spoke as he did today. However valid his criticisms of new trends and tendencies within the Commonwealth may be, I feel that the best answer to those criticisms is to try to strengthen the organisation which he now

feels has become too weak. This Bill is designed precisely for that purpose, representing at least one element of unity at a time when there are so many elements of discord in the Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world.
If my hon. Friend has excuse—I think that he has—to feel doubtful about certain trends in the Commonwealth, his energies, like those of all the rest of us, should be directed towards an acceptance of the reality of the situation and an effort to mend bridges. If the Secretariat is to be any good at all, it will work by consultation and by trying to iron out differences; and if we all bend our efforts in this direction the end which we desire can be achieved.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Will not my hon. Friend admit that the Commonwealth has ceased to exist completely, and, therefore, we ought to recognise the true realities of the situation?

Sir F. Bennett: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have now been asked whether I will admit that the Commonwealth has ceased to exist. If I were to answer that question, I should, I am sure, bring down your displeasure. May I say merely that I would not accept that conclusion at all, certainly not if the interpretation which most of us put on the Commonwealth is the right one, that it is an organisation which, though it has its imperfections, is in the interests of the world as a whole and which we ought to try to keep going and to improve.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for keeping within the realms of order.

Sir F. Bennett: I think that it was a very near thing, Sir.
I come now to the two detailed points which, I am sure, are strictly within order. The first is on the question of Income Tax. After the Minister of State had spoken, I thought I realised why we had adopted the rather cumbersome method proposed. Now, however, I am not quite sure, and I do not follow why it should apply to the officials of other Governments who, as I have said, will be seconded, but will be working with the Secretariat on a temporary basis as though they were in a High Commission. Why should they have to pay British Income


Tax and then have it paid back to the Secretariat? It seems a little odd.
I understand the reasoning in the case of British citizens, who will pay British Income Tax and be given commensurate salaries and which will then have the tax returned to the Secretariat. I have no quarrel with that proposition. But I find it a strange and new principle that overseas citizens in the permanent employ of their own Governments and seconded here for temporary employment should be treated in this way. An explanation is required of what is, however, a minor anomaly.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), in discussing the financial aspects, asked whether the figures mentioned—£175,000, or 30 per cent. of the total—were permanent. Of course, the Commonwealth is a changing body. Unless the Bill gets the Royal Assent very rapidly—and that depends on the election intentions of the Prime Minister—by the time it gets the Royal Assent one or two more members of the Commonwealth will soon be entitled to be members of the Secretariat.
At the moment, the table of cost is set out in percentages. Whenever a new member joins, is the percentage to be varied or will the total subscription go up while the percentage remains the same? The British taxpayer is entitled to know. Is there to be an annual review so that membership of the Secretariat dates only from a certain period after a country becomes a Commonwealth member?
Again, with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon in mind, one remembers how, a long while ago—it seems now to have been almost in one's childhood—one was told that the strength of the Commonwealth was as an association of like-minded peoples. That was a proud boast. But now it is the only association in the world of non like-minded peoples who manage to work together. I welcome that development of the Commonwealth and I therefore welcome the Bill.

6.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): It falls to my lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench—and I welcome it the more

because his speech was so competent and agreeable. I particularly liked the way in which he dealt with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) who, unusually, failed to show the same strong support for the Commonwealth that he has in the past.
All of us, with the exception of the hon. Member for Maldon, I am sure, welcome the Bill. We believe that the creation of the Secretariat is a Commonwealth initiative of major importance. The idea of some form of central Commonwealth organisation is perhaps as old as the Commonwealth itself. Certainly the proposal for a secretariat was made in the 1940s. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) has said, it arose in the 1945–46 period when I was on the Government and he was then also in Opposition. After that, it was my good fortune as a "shadow" Minister to press for a Secretariat. Thus it gives me great pleasure today to be the Secretary of State responsible for introducing the Bill.
In 1946 there was a feeling of suspicion about a Commonwealth Secretariat—a feeling that a central organisation would somehow be used as an instrument of British control over the policies of other Commonwealth Governments. Since those days the Commonwealth has greatly evolved. No one now would question the concept that each and every member country is free and in control of its own policies and that no machinery of Commonwealth co-operation should, or indeed, could, get in the way of that concept.
It has clearly been in the minds of the Commonwealth Heads of Government that, in the situation resulting from this evolution, the objections could no longer be sustained and it was for this reason that the Secretariat was formed. The Prime Ministers' Conference during the period of office of the last Government unanimously decided that the Secretariat should come into being. Thus, an all-party effort has resulted in the Secretariat being formed.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) mentioned the Lagos conference and I take the opportunity, as other hon. Members have done, to pay tribute to Mr. Arnold Smith for the very helpful part that he played. I agree with the


opinion expressed about him. He is a great Commonwealth officer and will be an admirable Secretary-General.
For the Secretariat, the Lagos conference was a baptism of fire and as a result of its experience it has grown much stronger. But it has also helped in the administration and organisation of other conferences. In September, there was the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Jamaica and then the Commonwealth Medical Conference in Edinburgh in October. Indeed, Mr. Smith's activities have included consultations with Commonwealth Governments and their representatives on a wide range of subjects, including helping with the processes of Singapore's membership of the Commonwealth, which was sponsored by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. There have also been meetings between Mr. Smith and the Ministers and officials of Commonwealth Governments and with representatives of Commonwealth organisations. In addition, Mr. Smith has visited countries in East and Central Africa and has met Heads of Government, Ministers and officials.
So it may be seen that the Secretariat has already done a good deal of very useful work for the Commonwealth and it is hoped that, in November, it will be able to service the Commonwealth Trade Ministers' Conference which will be held, I believe, in Jamaica.
The Secretariat also has the responsibility of looking after two committees set up, as a result of the Lagos Conference, to deal with Rhodesia, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). One is to deal with sanctions and the other is giving training assistance so that Africans can go into Rhodesia and run services in due course. It may be seen that the unanimity of the Commonwealth heads of Government in wanting the Secretariat demonstrates their faith in the Commonwealth.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the recruitment of women to the Secretariat. I hope that I am not committing a breach of confidence or privilege in revealing that Mr. Smith has told me that he himself has a bias towards enlarging the staff to include female employees. The problem is to

persuade Governments to let these very competent and charming ladies leave their own countries. However, I am glad to tell the hon. Lady that a former member of the Jamaican Foreign Service, Mrs. Robertson, is in charge of information and public relations within the Secretariat. In addition, as hon. Members know as well as I do, the Commonwealth itself leads the world because it has had two Lady Prime Ministers. I assure the hon. Lady that what she wants is very dear to the heart of Mr. Smith.
The hon. Lady also asked whether I could give details about appointments. There are now 11 senior staff and the countries of origin are Canada, Ghana, Ceylon, the United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and Australia. Four posts are vacant and these will be filled in due course.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport how the staff were appointed. The Secretary-General is appointed by Commonwealth heads of Governments acting collectively and the Deputy Secretaries-General are appointed by Commonwealth heads of Government acting through their representatives in London. Other senior staff are appointed by the Secretary-General from panels of names submitted by Commonwealth Governments. Junior staff are appointed directly by the Secretary-General.
I was also asked what factors governed the selection of staff. The paramount consideration is the highest possible standards of efficiency, competence and integrity, but due regard is paid to the importance of recruiting staff on as wide a geographical basis of the Commonwealth as possible.
The hon. Member for Devon, North asked how long members of the staff would serve. Senior officers are to be appointed in the first instance for not more than five and preferably not less than three years. There must be some flexibility in contract terms in order to secure some continuity of administration. I was asked whether it would not be better to appoint staff on a permanent basis to provide continuity and stability. The view was taken that this would not be the best way to deal with it. The Secretariat is a new venture and no one


would attempt at this stage to fossilise the Secretariat in the way suggested. The organisation is not big enough yet to afford the luxury of a permanent staff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) asked about the use of cars and diplomatic immunity. This is an innovation and I am glad that it has been welcomed. I can tell him that my experience with diplomats is that they seldom abuse their position. I remember on one occasion travelling with a diplomat in a car in London and being late for an appointment. The driver asked, "Should I go faster?" and the diplomat said, "Certainly not; we have privileges in this country and that is all the more reason to remember to keep the law." I do not think that there is much abuse, although there is a black sheep in every family.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether taxes could be a discouragement to recruitment. The evidence does not indicate that the Income Tax arrangements are in any way discouraging to recruitment. Salaries have been determined, as the Minister of State said, in such a way that after tax has been deducted, net salaries will be in line with those of comparable staff in High Commissions in London.
The hon. Member for Torquay said that the position was still not quite clear. I will do my best to try to explain further. We feel that it would not be right to create a special tax-free class. It is not the practice of other countries to do so, and we are conforming to customary international practice. It is only right to say that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers approve. An alternative would be to ask the Secretariat to operate its own internal tax system. It is too small an organisation to make that worth while. The administrative cost would be out of all proportion to the benefits which could be derived. It would also be necessary for locally recruited staff, in accordance with normal practice, to remain liable to British Income Tax law, which would further complicate the matter. The other alternative is to ask all of them to pay our taxes and we have decided that this is the best way of handling the matter. The staff of the Secretariat will be at no disadvantage compared with other diplomats.

Sir F. Bennett: I was asking only about senior officers who for this purpose are seconded from their own country and who would be compared in this innovation with High Commission Staff of equivalent rank who do not pay our Income Tax.

Mr. Bottomley: Their salaries and allowances would take account of the fact that they were paying British Income Tax, and net incomes would be in line with those of comparable staff of the High Commissions. To avoid in practice taxing the contributions of other countries, an amount equivalent to the tax collected is paid into the account of the Secretariat. Senior officers are no worse off.
The hon. Member for Devon, North wanted to know whether the contribution was a fixed sum or a percentage. The contribution of Britain, as of other countries, is on a fixed percentage basis of the actual cost of the Secretariat. The sum of £175,000 was an estimate of the cost for the first full year, of which Britain's share of 30 per cent. was £52,500. But, of course, the budget is bound to vary from year to year.
I was also asked whether the staff would have diplomatic immunities when going overseas. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers have undertaken to take steps to accord corresponding immunities and privileges to the staff of the Secretariat when visiting their territories, subject to whatever constitutional processes are required. This was in the agreed memorandum. I am not in a position to say whether all other Commonwealth countries have taken steps to make this possible, but there is an obligation to do so.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) asked whether there was any news of the addition of a legal section. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was the wish of the Law Ministers meeting in (Canberra that Britain should initiate the setting up a legal section of the Secretariat. The British Government felt the best way to do this entirely within the spirit which led to the establishment of the Secretariat would be for the processing to be undertaken by the Secretary-General himself. There have been discussions about this with Mr. Arnold Smith and I have no doubt that


in the near future he will be taking steps to bring this to the notice of other Commonwealth countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) asked whether the Secretariat would be able to raise points of procedure with Commonwealth Governments. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Secretariat was of course to ease Commonwealth procedure. I have no doubt that when there is any question of the efficacy or appropriateness of Commonwealth procedures in current circumstances, the Secretary-General and members of the Secretariat will do their best to ease and, where possible, to modernise the procedures, without, of course, encroaching on the sovereign rights of other countries.
New members, once admitted to the Commonwealth, will accept their obligations and after a full year they will pay their percentage in accordance with decisions reached by the Commonwealth members as a whole.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked whether the senior officers so far recruited were on a permanent or secondment basis from their own services. None is permanent and they are all members of their foreign or home civil services according to their status in the Commonwealth Secretariat.
There is no doubt that over the years the Commonwealth has fashioned a lot of official and unofficial links, and this Commonwealth Secretariat is one of the latest. This is a difficult and dangerous world which makes these links even more valuable than before. It is only sensible that we should preserve the links we have and strengthen them where possible. It is remarkable that, with few exceptions, former dependencies have chosen to remain linked in free and equal association with each other and with Britain, the former Imperial Power.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My right hon. Friend has said nothing about the absence of an Interpretation Clause.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been here earlier he would have noticed that I deliberately avoided that, and now that he is back I am not in a position to give him the answer. I have already undertaken to

write to him, and I will do so. I was going on to ask why it is that we still have Commonwealth ties stronger than in the past. The hon. Member for Maldon made the point that some of the Commonwealth countries such as Ghana and Tanzania had left. They have not left the Commonwealth but broken an association with Britain. Most African countries, although they belong to another organisation, when urged by that organisation to break with Britain did not do so.
This Secretariat has already proved its great value and service to the Commonwealth. I have mentioned the major part played by it in the servicing of the controversial Lagos Conference. I must confess that I was not looking forward with any joy to attending that Conference. There were many people who said, "The Commonwealth cannot last long now". There were some who did not like its multiracial nature. Many despaired of the Commonwealth, but all must agree that, following the Lagos Conference, the Commonwealth was strengthened. They were dark days in which many felt impelled to take a long hard look at the Commonwealth and what it stood for, its achievements and failures, its strength and weaknesses in the world.
I am very happy to say that within the Commonwealth, because we speak the same language, literally and metaphorically, we have developed a style of conversation permitting a franker and freer exchange of information. This is made possible by the establishment of the Secretariat. In all of this the relationship between Governments is given extra life and meaning by the links which exist in every conceivable form of human activity and which pass largely unrecognised because we take them so much for granted. I said that the first major task undertaken by the Commonwealth Secretariat was the servicing of the Lagos Conference. The Secretariat did a splendid job, unobtrusively and efficiently, justifying the high hopes that we had of it.
What happeneed at the Commonwealth Conference? The Commonwealth was confirmed and the critics confounded. I am a realist and in Lagos the Commonwealth weathered one more storm. It is because I believe in the Commonwealth that I believe that it is humanity's best


bet for multiracial co-operation in a world bubbling with racial animosities. The birth of the Commonwealth Secretariat is a happy event and is visible evidence of the Commonwealth's faith in its own future. It is a voluntary strenthening of the airy ties that lightly bind 22 sovereign nations in a free and friendly association without parallel in history. It is because I believe the Commonwealth Secretariat will do much and play on important part in strengthening these ties that I commend the Bill heartily to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Harper.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVIES)

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be convenient to take, at the same time, the second Order:
That the Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
Both Orders are closely connected.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that both sides of the House share that opinion. So be it.

Mr. Darling: The purpose of the Orders is to amend Orders at present in force under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The levies were first introduced at the request of the employers and trade unions in the industry. The first Orders were made in 1950 and have been varied from time to time since. One levy is for the promotion of exports of woollen goods and the other is for scientific research into the technical problems of the industry.
I should explain that the levies are paid by both the suppliers of wool and the

processors. The terms are based upon the quantities of wool, supplied or consumed and on the number of persons employed in processing it. The accounting periods for this arrangement are the six months ending 31st March and 30th September of each year. To get the purpose of the organisation of the levies into focus it should be explained that they are collected by the Board of Trade and paid to the National Textile Export Corporation to reimburse expenses incurred by it in the promotion of overseas sales and to the Wool Textile Research Council, the body which is responsible for co-ordinating research in the industry.
The purpose of the Orders is to increase the total current annual yield of the two levies by about one-third—in other words, from about £369,000 to approximately £500,000 a year. This is done by increasing the rates of charge and, at the same time, adjusting the incidence of the rates so as to reduce the proportion paid in respect of the supply or the consumption of wool, and increasing the proportion based on the processing operations.
In recent years the raw material section of the industry has been contributing a greater proportion than it should have done. The rates per worker—in my brief it says employment units, but I think that this is going a bit too far—are now to be increased by 45 per cent., while the rates on the sale and consumption of wool are to be increased by 31 per cent. This differential should correct the balance to the proportions originally agreed in 1950 between the raw material and processing sections.
The new rates are intended to operate for the period beginning 1st April, 1966. This means that the returns will fall to be made after 1st October. On previous occasions, and we are following the same arrangements, the charges have been requested by the industry with the support of the trade unions. I might mention, in passing, that I wish that all industries had the same kind of friendly labour relations which exist in this industry.
The main reason for the increased charges are the continued rising costs since the levies were last increased and the continuing decline in the industry's labour force. The falling off in the number of workers employed, is I hope, due


to increasing efficiency and is important because 75 per cent. of the levy that is collected is charged in respect of the number of workers employed. On the export promotion side, the levy, when it was instituted in 1950, was expected to produce about £100,000 to £120,000 a year. The last increase in the rates, in 1957, was expected to produce a total of about £200,000 a year. But for the reasons I have given, the current annual yield has fallen to about £160,000. The amended rates proposed in the Orders should produce initially about £214,000 a year and it is calculated that this sum amounts to about l/27th of 1 per cent. of the turnover of the industry, so that the incidence of the levy on the industry is very small indeed.

Mr. Peter Emery: Do I understand that the figures which are being given relate only to the export promotion side, and do not relate to the two Statutory Instruments?

Mr. Darling: That is perfectly true. I am sorry if I confused the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members. This is purely for the export promotion levy. As I say, the amended rates now proposed should, we think, to begin with at any rate, produce about £214,000 a year, and the increased income is needed so that there may be an extension of the export promotion work done in overseas markets.
As everyone knows, the industry is meeting ever increasing competition overseas and the income from the levy is no longer adequate to maintain the export promotional effort which has been stepped up in recent years and, at the same time, allow for increased expenditure in the United States. It is necessary to have this apparently high level of expenditure in the United States to take advantage of the recent change in the United States labelling regulations relating to the marking of imported woollen cloth.
It has been announced already that to assist the Corporation in this endeavour the Government have agreed to contribute £50,000 towards expenditure incurred between 1st April last year and 31st March this year. This is being incurred on publicity in the United States and is being provided on condition that the Corporation spends an equivalent sum on this

work in the United States. To compete successfully, not only in Europe and the United States, but in all overseas markets, it is necessary for the industry to participate in major trade exhibitions overseas, such as that held in Tokyo last September, and in British weeks—in Amsterdam last year, Copenhagen, Düsseldorf and Milan. These are recent instances. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the Corporation's outlay on the Tokyo exhibition alone was about £24,000. The cost of this sort of enterprise will undoubtedly continue to represent, on occasions, quite a large proportion of the Corporation's budget for promotional expenditure.
Alongside the promotional work there is the need to maintain the industry's measures for protecting the interests of exporters against adverse tariffs and quota legislation in overseas markets. As hon. Members probably know, missions are sent abroad to put the industry's case at tariff hearings.
That is the case for the export promotion levy. I turn to the levy for scientific research. When this was instituted it was expected to produce much the same amount—about £100,000 to £120,000 a year. That was in 1950. The last increase, which was made in 1962, was expected to produce a total of about £245,000 a year. But again, for the reasons which I have given, the current annual yield has fallen to a little over £200,000. This is considered to be insufficient. It is estimated that the proposed amended rates will produce about £286,000 in the financial year which starts in 1966. We reckon that this sum will amount to about one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of the turnover of the industry. The increase proposed is not designed to cater for an expanded programme of scientific research, but is required to meet the rising costs of maintaining research at its existing level.
The Wool Textile Research Council reimburses expenses incurred by the various bodies which are carrying out programmes of research approved by the Council. The bulk of the proceeds of the levy is allocated to research schemes carried out by the Wool Industries Research Association, and this constitutes the major part of the Association's income. In addition, the Association receives a grant from the


Ministry of Technology which, in the current year, amounts to about £82,500.
But it is Government policy to ensure that an increased percentage of the cost of research is borne by industry. While the Ministry of Technology cannot yet say what grant terms will be offered to the Wool Industries Research Association in the next quinquennium which begins in October this year, the Association will probably have to find a greater proportion of the funds which it needs from industry rather than from the Government. This is a factor which the industry has taken into account in seeking the increased rates of levy proposed in the Orders. Without the increase now proposed, it is doubtful whether adequate research could continue in the industry. At a time when world competition is intensifying, the need for research is more important that ever.
As is required by the 1947 Act, the Board of Trade has consulted the various organisations concerned. The Orders were requested by the Wool Textile Delegation, representing about 85 per cent. of the employers in the industry, and its application is supported by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, which are the principal organisations of employees in the industry.
In addition, 21 other trade associations, some of whose members are directly or indirectly affected by the levy, have been consulted and three have sent in objections. Although these three represent a very small proportion of the interests affected by the levies, the representations which they made have been carefully examined but have not been found to be of sufficient substance to outweigh the support given to the Orders by the overwhelming majority of the industry. The industry in general values the work paid for from these two levies and wishes it to be continued and extended. This is borne out by the fact that the increased rates have been requested by the principal organisations in the industry and are warmly supported by the trade unions.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: We on this side of the House welcome these two Statutory Instruments, which increase the levies of the wool industry of Great Britain. I was intrigued to listen to the

Minister of State, or perhaps I should say to follow him through his speech, because it is printed almost word for word in today's HANSARD of another place—with one or two minor alterations.
It is important to make plain that, on the whole, these Orders are required by the wool industry. Obviously, we in this House would want to do everything we could to assist the work of the industry in the vital part which it plays, not only in the manufacturing process and the opportunities for work which it provides, but in the export effort of industry generally.
I should like to deal, first, as did the Minister of State, with the Export Promotion Levy Order. The hon. Gentleman's argument for the alteration in the percentage did not altogether follow the facts as I understand them. It is true that there has been a decline in the labour force within the industry. What we in this House should face, however, is that there has been great competition with man-made fibres, which accounts for the decline in the increase which might normally be expected for wool. I should have thought that the arguments put forward by the wool industry for alteration of the percentages relate as much to this specific factor as to any other.
I suggest that the total sum of the export levy is not as high as the industry might like. It is a difficult matter when the industry has to provide this money, but I wonder whether the Minister of State has any views about the total which is required for export promotion, which is the purpose of the levy. How much does he consider that this sum should be?
The increase from £160,000 to £214,000 is considerable. It is slightly above the norm and might be said to be about 36 per cent. I gather, however, that it can be argued that it is still not as much as the industry might like. Therefore, as the Government are at all times at pains to point out that they will do everything they can to help exports, I wonder whether they would not consider anteing up a little bit of extra money to increase that specific side of the levy.
Does the Minister have any new ideas about how the money is to be spent? We have heard from him about trade fairs and trade weeks which are being organised in different parts of the world. I do


not know whether I should declare an interest, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have specific connections with purchasing in industry and I am aware of the need to have the ear of buyers. I am not always certain that trade fairs are the best places for obtaining the ear of potential overseas buyers.
I should be worried if I were of the view that the greater percentage of the increase was to be spent only upon more and more trade fairs throughout the world. Can the Minister say what proportion of the levy will be spent upon trade fairs, or, if that is not possible, what the percentage has been in the last year or accounting period for which he has figures Frequently, it is the ear of the buyer which has to be obtained.
It is not always buyers who visit trade fairs. One has only to go to a trade fair to realise how often—and this is much more the case outside Britain—it is an occasion for visiting by all sections of the community, who, much more than the ordinary buyer, are the main people who visit these fairs. I wonder, therefore, whether the use of journals has been sufficiently considered as a means of advertising to reach the bulk buyers who spend the money and whether there are not other methods which should not be more fully considered by the Wool Export Council.
In saying this, I am not suggesting that the Council does not take as many opportunities as possible, but when the Japanese Trade Fair, for example, cost £24,000, which was way over 10 per cent. of the total amount of money available last year, one wonders whether, if a lot more were spent on trade fairs, the proportion devoted to this purpose might be excessive.
The scientific research levy also has increased, from £209,000 to £286,000. This, too, is an increase of about 36 per cent. and it is considerable. It has been demanded, I believe, by all sections of the industry. It is interesting to note that the Wool Textile Research Council receives the proceeds of the levy and, as the Minister has stated, reimburses the expenses incurred by various bodies. These include the Wool Industries Research Association, which, I believe, receives the bulk of the money which is collected.

The universities and certain technical colleges also benefit. I should like to know from the Minister of State how much money has been given by this manner of grant to universities and technical colleges during the last accounting year. This is a matter of interest, because it is in this direction that much more original research can often be stimulated.
I wonder whether the money available is sufficient. Can the Minister—I have given him notice of the question—say how much of the research work is being done on wool mixtures? By this I mean the new fibres which are blended with wool, which often are able to create fabrics which have a modern appeal, sometimes greater than that of wool. I realise that I must be guarded in what I say about that from the Dispatch Box. Nevertheless, there is great potential for an extension of the form of fabrics in which there is a mixture between man-made fibres and wool. I wonder how much of the grants have been used for experiments in this direction.
The other thing which concerns me is the amount of aid which smaller firms have been able to get from the scientific research levy. When one considers the matter, it is fairly obvious that the larger firms are to a much greater extent able to carry out research. They have the necessary facilities and they have the money and the personnel to allow them to do it. It is the smaller firms which frequently do not have the capital backing and, therefore, are not able to carry out the types of research that they might desire. Is the Minister satisfied that the smaller firms are getting a fair and proper return from the scientific research levy?
In looking round the industry, one cannot help but be impressed by the number of small firms which play their full part, whether in Yorkshire or Scotland, from which I have just returned. The Scottish wool industry has kept well abreast of advances in both manufacture and export in the past few years. However, I wonder what the crofters know about the Scientific Research Levy and how much they are likely to benefit from it.
I noticed a Scottish Member on the Front Bench opposite, and I say at once that it is not my intention to encroach into his world for very long, but I am


certain that he would be the first to agree with me that the crofters have the right to be assured that, in new processes, new aspects of production and new skills, their interests will be considered and that they will be able to benefit just as much as the biggest firms in the country. Therefore, I wonder if the crofters themselves have been considered, and I ask the question because I do not know. I am not trying to make a political point, but it is of importance, because I see no reason why they should not benefit.
I come then to something which was said by the Minister of State in his speech, because I found it more worrying than anything else that he said. Apparently, notice has been given to the industry that the grant of £82,500 is to be cut. I do not see how the Minister's words can be interpreted in any other way. Direct notice has been given to the Ministry of Technology that the Government are not to continue the grant at the same level as they saw fit to make last time.
That is a major error, because I suggest that, if anything is to be done, there is a need for more money and not less. It hardly seems to fit in with the Minister of Technology's supposed desire at all times to help in scientific advance to find that, when we come to deal with an export industry which is achieving £160 million of foreign earnings, the Government should be mealy-mouthed in cutting a figure of £82,500. That, surely, is a nonsense.
If I pursue that argument for very long, doubtless I shall be wandering a little wider than the Statutory Instruments allow—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman to order if he wanders too far away.

Mr. Emery: I have no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.
If the Ministry of Technology grant of £82,500 is to be cut, then we say quite categorically that it should be considered again whether the amount of the new levy as envisaged by the Order is enough. Before we pass the Orders, I hope that I can have a clear answer to my specific question on that grant.
That, apparently, is the only discord which exists between the two sides of the House on the main parts of the two

Orders, and, therefore, I would urge my hon. Friends to support them.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. George Craddock: Unfortunately, the debate was expected to come on at a much later hour, and therefore many hon. Members did not hear my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench. Nevertheless, I think that the Orders have the firm approval of hon. Members representing Bradford constituencies, three of whom are present. We have been giving them serious consideration, as we are particularly concerned with holding the £160 million worth of world trade which is done by the woollen industry, very largely in the heavy woollen district. We find that there has been a rundown in recent years because of man-made fibres, such as Terylene and other similar materials mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery).
These are just casual thoughts that occur to me, not having heard the beginning of the debate, but I can say that we feel we have a special interest, and we hope that what occurred in the other place yesterday, when approval was given to these two Orders, will be repeated here.
The hon. Member for Reading made a good deal about the increased levies in the two Orders from £369,000 to £500,000. He thought that it was insufficient. At least the Government have given attention to the matter and tried to redress the position to some extent. Having regard to the enormous trade of Bradford in particular, the heavy woollen district has built up a powerful image for good grade material throughout the world, and, when we are still doing £160 million worth of trade, I feel that the Minister might give further consideration, a bit later on, to an increase beyond the £500,000 suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, may I say that we in the Bradford area—members of all parties and the trade unions—support both the Orders.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am happy to be associated with and to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) in making


a short speech in support of the two Orders in his presence and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) as well.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that there is nothing as good as wool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I nearly shot out of my seat when I heard my hon. Friend talking about other fibres mixed with wool. We have to put up with them, and the wool textile trade owes its success at the moment in no small measure to the way that it has reharnessed itself to mixtures of man-made fibre with animal fibre. Hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that that success will be extended. But it does not alter my first definite statement that there is nothing to take the place of wool.
I join with the Minister in his tribute to industrial relations in the great wool textile industry. In Bradford, it is over 50 years since there was a strike of any sort in the industry, and that has been due to the two matters which the Minister mentioned. First, we have been blessed with wise trade union leadership for more than half a century. Secondly, because small firms—hundreds of them—together with the big ones, take part in this great industry, and we have had the tradition of the employer knowing almost everybody on his staff by name, and knowing their family troubles. I have experienced this tradition of friendship all my life. I was born in Bradford, and the Wool Textile Delegation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South has its head office in the centre of the city.

Mr. Speaker: I am moved by what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he must come to the Order.

Mr. Tiley: I was only congratulating the Minister on the way in which he introduced the Order and referred to the wonderful industrial relations in this trade. I regret that I trod outside the narrow path.
I do not think that successive Governments have appreciated the extent of the competition which the wool textile trade has had to face during the last 15 or 20 years, but we are still sixth in the country's

exporting table and we export £170 million worth of goods, at a time when markets throughout the world have been closing to the textile exporting trade.
The first thing that people do when they begin to manufacture things, or to advance their way of life, is to make their own clothes. In spite of the fact that many markets have closed to our products, we have maintained our place in the country's export league table, and have achieved this magnificent total of £170 million a year in exports. I am glad to support these Orders and to be associated with what has been said by the Minister, by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, and by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: These two Orders have been of great benefit to the wool industry of Scotland, and I rise to add my general support for them if only to break the Bradford monopoly. Both the Orders have particular reference to my constituency, with hosiery in Dumfries, and tweed in Langholm. In fact, in Langholm, virtually all the manufacturing capacity is concentrated in the tweed mills where cloth of the highest quality is made. The woollen industry is, of course, the staple employer in the Borders, and is of prime importance to the economy of the south of Scotland, in much the same way as the Harris tweed industry is to the Islands, and those who have been to the Island of Stornoway know how vital it is to have a good tweed industry in the North-West. These Orders are valuable to Langholm, because any recession there will have the gravest consequences to a town which has no alternative employment.
Continued promotion and research into the products of this industry is the stepping stone for expansion and advancement. I propose to deal, first, with research. There is general praise for the Wool Industries Research Association, and particularly for the help which it is giving in testing materials and in improving quality. It has done excellent work as an arbiter, and in encouraging university research, but more of the money that we are voting tonight should be devoted to this end, and particularly to the technical colleges. I wonder whether the Minister knows that a proportion of this money goes to the technical college at Galashiels,


which is the basis for education in the woollen industry in the Border area.
The export levy is of vital importance to an industry which is made up basically of a large number of relatively small businesses, often long-standing and progressive family businesses. Indeed, firms with a staff of more than 300 are very much the exception, and most are very much smaller. Their resources as individuals are limited, but co-operative efforts under the wing of the Wool Textile Delegation and the Export Corporation are producing good results.
Exports are exceptionally high. Some mills are sending about 80 per cent. of their production overseas. This is something of which we can all be justly proud. It must be particularly heartening to the President of the Board of Trade when he sees the way in which this industry has responded to the call for exports, and I believe that the hosiery industry alone exported more than £10 million worth of goods last year.
In their export activity I have heard a suspicion of criticism, and this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery). It is that perhaps these big trade fairs are not so advantageous in producing results as are the smaller exhibitions attended primarily by buyers, but this is a matter where their long experience is probably producing the best results.
I agree with what has been said about the good relations which exist in this industry between workers and management, and I conclude by welcoming the extension of these Orders, which I am sure will stimulate all concerned to even greater efforts, and will go a long way to ensuring that the craftsmen and crafts-women of Langholm and the Borders will have employment for many years to come.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Duffy: I start by apologising to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) for having missed their speeches. I very much wanted to hear what they had to say.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) will forgive me if I say that it is not good enough to welcome these

Orders and then paint such a complacent picture of the industry. If it were in such a fine state we would not need these Orders. The levies would not need to be hoisted up as they are being done here. I think that it does the industry a disservice to talk as though all is well.
It is true that management and labour relations are fine and that the industry has a good export record, but it does not mean that notes of discord are not creeping into the relations between management and labour. Nor does it mean that there are no blemishes on the industry's export record. During 1964 and the early part of 1965 exports fell, and I think that we know why. We know the markets in which this happened, and it does not do the industry anything but a disservice to conceal this or to gloss over it.

Mr. Tiley: The hon. Gentleman was not here when I made my speech, and I think that he has misunderstood me. It is a good thing now and again to let the heart rejoice about things that are right, be it in Bradford or anywhere else—that is what we have been trying to do for a few moments—and to get away from the great pressures of life. We have been enjoying ourselves, and have not been doing a disservice to the textile industry.

Mr. Duffy: I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech. I was not aware that this was a place in which one rejoiced. I have heard it described as many things. Many constructions are put on the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members, but never the one which the hon. Gentleman has just advanced.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the raw material now going into the industry, and the percentage of it which was accounted for by man-made fibres. It is not good enough to say that wool is best. We know that it is. Being emotional will not help the people in Bradford. It is much better, for their sake, to be rational. It is much better to look ahead to 1968 and 1969. We know that wool is best, but that will not prevent man-made fibres accounting for a larger and larger percentage of the raw material being consumed by the industry. Of course it is fine to see, as the hon. Member might have said, and as many others have said. It seems to be an article of Conservative faith to pay


tribute to small family businesses. That is a virtue of the industry that we are discussing. But in some ways it is the great fault of this industry that it is still dominated by these small family businesses—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to keep entirely away from the Orders that we are discussing.

Mr. Duffy: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Big changes are pending in this industry. as in other industries. The lessons of the cotton textile industry have not been lost upon the more farsighted firms in the wool textile industry, of which there are several in the Colne Valley. These firms are very interested in these Orders and, like myself, would like to see a much higher levy. They are introducing more automatic machinery into their mills.
Nowadays, unfortunately, the best machinery is not British but foreign. It is perhaps three times as expensive as the home-produced equipment, and if it is to be used to the best advantage there will have to be a different relationship between management and the unions. It will require a different basis of shift work—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to come to the levies that we are discussing in the two Orders.

Mr. Duffy: I shall certainly do so, Mr. Speaker. The introduction of the machinery that I have been describing is reflected in the declining labour force. Questions that I have put in the House since I came here have revealed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep to the terms of the Orders.

Mr. Duffy: If you will bear with me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I shall show how relevant my remarks are to the Orders. The labour force in the industry declined from 131,000 in December, 1960, to 116,000 in December, 1963. The assessment of the levies is based, as to about 75 per cent., on the number of persons employed. In those circumstances I ask the Minister whether he thinks that this is a satisfactory basis for arriving at the levies. Does he think, in view of the big changes that will take place in the industry, that it will be able to cope

if it does not have added resources for research and export promotion?
Does he think that the industry will receive the help that it should have when the basis for the assessment of the levy is self-defeating for the industry and is based largely on the number of persons employed?

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Several hon. Members have been surprised at the early starting of this debate. I rise only to make three points. I do not want anybody to imagine that the places that have been referred to are the only important wool textile centres. I represent Shipley, which is also an important centre, and which adjoins Bradford, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) has said. I deprecate much of what was said by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy).
Not sufficient tribute is paid to the enormous extent to which voluntary efforts in research have been responsible for export promotion in the wool textile industry. These efforts went on long before the House ever thought fit to bring in Orders of this kind. They characterise the industry as being rather more wide awake than the cotton industry.
The sums to be raised under the Orders do not represent all the money that is spent on research in the wool textile industry. There is a co-operative movement in the industry, and much bigger sums than those to which reference has been made tonight have been spent by the collective endeavour of individual firms. The hon. Member for Colne Valley is not being fair to the industry in denigrating its efforts. I am sure that he did not wish to do so, but that is the impression he gave in his speech. I agree that all is not well in the industry, but all is not well in many industries. There is always room for greater efficiency and co-operative effort. But I have always paid tribute to what the industry has done and is doing.

Mr. Duffy: Why does the hon. Member deprecate what I have said and then go on to make exactly the points that I have made?

Mr. Hirst: Nobody listening to the debate could imagine that I was making the same points as the hon. Member for


Colne Valley made. I am prepared to stand by what HANSARD says tomorrow. That question does not arise out of the Orders and I shall not pursue it, but I am not making the same point. I am pointing out that considerable sums of money, far beyond the sums involved in the Orders, are spent by the industry, and that it is not right to give the impression that it is not doing very well, and has had to come to the House for permission to raise a few hundred thousand pounds.
When making mandatory Orders of this nature we must think of the many small firms which are doing exceptionally good things. The idea that these small firms are of no value is nonsense. Some of the small runs bring out the individuality of this trade. People pay far more than the normal price for something which has an individual character, and some of the small firms are doing a very good job in this respect. It must be remembered that they do not benefit as much from co-operative research as do the large units. We must therefore ration our enthusiasm for statutory Orders, providing we know that a great deal of money is already being spent in the industry and that it has always recognised, from the word "go", that however valuable wool is, and despite the fact that wool is best, it must march with the times.
The industry does recognise the merits of man-made fibres, and it has carried out research work to see how far these fibres can be combined with wool, so that although less wool is sold in any one article more wool is sold in total. That is the purpose of these Orders, and that is why I support them.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I want to make one or two points concerning the weavers of the Hebrides. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) mentioned them in passing, as did the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery). The Orders state that the Board of Trade has consulted organisations concerning exports and the processing of wool. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) had been here he would have taken part in the debate. Unfortunately;, he has had to attend a meeting. I apologise

if I do not make the case as well as he would have made it.
The weavers in the Hebrides produce Harris Tweed, which is probably the finest woollen produce in the world—and I say that with due respect to the Borders. That is a different product, but Harris Tweed is well known all over the world. The Harris Tweed weavers in the Hebrides are organised on a different basis from most weavers in the United Kingdom. I hope that these weavers in the Hebrides were consulted through organisations, either of trade unions or employers, about the extent to which these levies—or any Government assistance—will go towards marketing their products all over the world.
Harris Tweed is such a splendid product, and is recognised as such all over the world, that its imitators are many. There is no wool product so imitated. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles has said so often, the weavers in the Western Isles often find their markets prejudiced by imitations. I hope that Government assistance and grants will be made available and that consultations will be held with the weavers to help extend their markets for the genuine Harris product.
This product plays a great part in the Highlands and will play a part in the Highlands' expansion. Any other industry and activity there must be complementary to it and not a substitute for it. I hope that there will be regular consultations and that the weavers can be assured that the Government are doing as much, if not more, for them in their remote fastnesses of Scotland as they are doing for Bradford or even the Borders.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: I wish to interpose myself between the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) who has now left, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). Much of what my hon. Friend said in criticism of the industry is valid, but it would be wrong to let the order go without the House paying some tribute to this important British industry. In my own constituency, there is still no substitute for wool. The industry has a very fine export and labour relations record. One could wish that other industries had this collective levy


arrangement to finance greater scientific research.
Of course, one could wish for more scientific research by individual firms. It is essential that there should be more. The difficulty with this important industry is that it is still, unfortunately, a low wage industry. Therefore, the more that can be spent on scientific research the better will be the long-term outlook for the industry.
I have studied the recommendations of the National Plan about this industry, about its needs in finance, building and re-equipment, all of which one recognises. The passing of these two Orders will give much help to the efficiency and the health of an industry on which the prosperity and well being of the vast majority of my constituents depends.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Darling: I would tell the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) that, if the previous debate had run its expected course, I might have had time to paraphrase a joint brief more into my usual style. All the same, it was a very good brief.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) put his finger on the key to the debate. He said that the woollen industry is doing well, but that it should not be complacent. The levies and the increased expenditure on research and exports promotion which they involve are proof that the industry is not complacent. I think all would agree that there is room for improvement. It is to seek in certain ways the improvement which is needed that we ask the House to agree to these increased levies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised the question of consultation with the weavers in the Western Isles. There has been consultation and I regret to tell him that one or two of the members of the Harris Tweed Association are not very happy about the increased levies. I will not go over their arguments, but they think that they do not get enough benefit from them. The Board of Trade has pointed out in answer to these objections that the work done, for instance, by the research association contributes to the development of even the section of the woollen industry

in the Western Isles. Also, of course, what is spent on export promotion is surely of general benefit to the Harris Tweed Industry.
My hon. Friend raised the question of protecting the trade mark of Harris Tweed. The new Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, now going through another place, will, of course, give the Board of Trade the authority it needs to protect the agreed trade description and mark of products in this country, so that if anyone tries to put the agreed trade mark on a product which does not come up to that definition, that body of people—industry or any other group—would be committing an offence under the Bill. I am sure that, when that Bill is considered by this House, my hon. Friends the Members for Dunbartonshire, East and the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will give it a warm welcome.
The hon. Member for Reading asked a number of pertinent questions. He wanted to know whether the levy will be sufficient for export promotion. This is, of course, a very difficult question to answer. No industry raising its money in this way will ever find enough to pay for the real export drive which the industry wants to mount. For instance, it is a matter of judgment whether the trade fair, the British Week or any other form of export promotion is the right form on which to spend the money available. Also, there is difficulty if one tries to spend the money too thinly over too many projects. Yet I would mention that additional funds are available for trade fairs from the Board of Trade and the British National Export Council, as well as from the industry itself.
Discussions are going on all the time to try to find the best way of using the money for export promotion. I say this without reflection on the industry, but I think that British industry as a whole does not pay enough attention to market research in overseas countries. This line could perhaps be profitably exploited, from wherever the money comes.

Mr. Peter Emery: I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but I asked him to give the percentage of the levy which is being used for trade fairs. If he does not have the figure, would he obtain it and give it to me later?

Mr. Darling: I do not know how the money is broken down as between the various projects and it must be remembered that other money, in addition to that provided by the levy, is available for certain projects. I do not have the precise figure the hon. Gentleman wants but I will attempt to get it and give it to him.
The hon. Member for Reading then asked if we could find out how much was spent on research into mixtures of textiles, that is, research involving man-made fibres and wool. I am afraid that these figures are not with me. Man-made fibres are being increasingly used in the woollen industry and the Research Association is at present undertaking research involving mixtures of wool and man-made fibres. I cannot give a breakdown of the figures, but if it is possible to obtain them I will let the hon. Gentleman have them.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the amount of expenditure on research done by firms in the industry in addition to that carried out by the research association. It is difficult to arrive at precise figures, but the Federation of British Industries conducted an inquiry—an industrial research survey—covering a number of industries in 1960. It appeared that the total expenditure on research by individual firms in the wool and textile industry was about £55,000, but I do not suggest that that was a reliable figure, even for 1960, remembering that the survey represented a small sample.
The hon. Member for Reading then asked about the amount of research done, in addition to that carried out by the research association, at universities, technical colleges, and so on, and the spread of the expenditure. The latest figures I have come from the thirteenth Annual Report of the Wool Textile Research Council and are for the 12 months to September, 1964, but I imagine that the breakdown would be much the same now. In that year the proceeds from the levy available to the Wool Textile Research Council amounted to about £238,000. About £225,000 of that was spent by the research association within the industry.
I will go through the list of additional research because it might interest hon. Members. Leeds University came at the top, with its textile department getting about £13,000. Smaller sums went to

other departments, for example, for research on colour, dyeing, chemistry, and so on. The Bradford Institute of Technology also got a large sum, and the Huddersfield College of Technology and Keighley Technical College also received amounts, although I notice that the Galashiels Technical College received nothing that year, but had done in earlier years.
The Glasgow Royal Technical College, Manchester College of Science and Technology, Birmingham University's Chemistry Department and a body called the Trade Effluent Research Association also received amounts. I gather that the latter spent the money on research into trade effluent, which is an important matter in the part of the country which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and I know well and which has more anglers per head of the population than any other part of the country. We want to do our utmost to stop the pollution of our rivers.
The hon. Member for Reading went on to question the views which I had put forward about the Government expecting the industry to contribute more for research and said that he had been led to believe, from what I had said, that this would result in a smaller sum of money coming from the Government. Government aid to the industry is not likely to be reduced. In fact, it may well be raised, although the research association, if the Government's suggestions are carried out, will have to find a greater proportion of the funds it needs from its industrial sources.
I am not able to report precisely the terms of what the grant will be over the next five years. It has not yet been fixed. However, I think that it will be at such a level that while the industry will have to raise more money itself, it will not mean that the Government's contribution will be reduced. As I say, it is more than likely that the grant will be increased. I cannot say more as the terms of the grant have not yet been worked out.

Mr. Peter Emery: This is an important point. The hon. Gentleman will know that I do not wish in any way to misapply what he said. I got the impression initially that the Ministry of Technology's grant of £82,500 was likely to be cut.


Can the hon. Gentleman say categorically that that specific grant will not be cut in future?

Mr. Darling: I cannot say categorically that it will not be reduced. This depends on what contribution the industry makes. These increased levies mean that the industry is proposing over the next five years to spend more on research. If that is so, then, whatever may be the terms arranged for the Ministry of Technology's contribution, I would expect that the Government's contribution would be increased. I cannot give a categorical assurance, because this is a matter for the Ministry of Technology. Discussions between the Ministry and the industry about the form which the grant will take in future are involved in this.
The hon. Member for Reading then referred to crofters. The Wool Textile Delegation has indicated that it has arrangements in hand for a comprehensive inquiry into research covering the whole of the industry and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's valuable contribution to the debate will be drawn to the attention of that delegation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley questioned me about the way in which the levy is organised as between productive processes—the consumption of wool and the labour force in the industry. It could be argued, bearing in mind the way my hon. Friend adduced his arguments, that with a declining labour force some new arrangement might be arrived at for the levy. The industry itself has given a good deal of thought to this matter. Both sides of the industry have decided that it is not at present feasible to make any change in the basis of the levy in order to offset both higher costs and the reduction of the labour force.
The industry is, however, continuing to study other possible methods of assessment for the levy, and I think that we have to leave it there for the time being. I have not had a chance to check over either the hon. Gentleman's or my own arithmetic in this respect, but I am sure that the changes that have been made in the amount of the levy that comes from the two different sources will restore the proportion to the 75 per cent. that comes from the labour force and the 25 per cent. from the productive process.
I am very pleased indeed that these two levies have been received in this constructive way, and with a deal of enthusiasm. I am sure that this is the right kind of collective response from the firms in the industry and will help to break down any complacency in the industry that might exist. I am sure that there is a very good future for the woollen industry, whether it will base for all time its main operations on the theory that wool is best, or whether the introduction of mixtures with man-made fibres will change the character of the industry. I do not know what will happen eventually in that respect, but I do know that the industry will go on making the best textiles in the world, and that it is an industry with a very bright future before it.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: By leave of the House, there is just one point I should like to make following the very helpful and considerate speech of the Minister of State. One thing that has been evident, and it was not dealt with by the hon. Gentleman—I am sure, by an oversight—is that, whether one accepts the views of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), there can be no argument at all that much of this industry is made up of small firms. That must be accepted.
I should like to carry a stage further the point I made. The Minister of State pointed out that some Harris Tweed weavers did not feel that they were getting as much benefit from the levy as possible. I believe it to be true that smaller firms perhaps do not always know, perhaps do not always understand, how they can best benefit from the aspects of the levy. It is of the greatest importance that they should, and it is specifically for that reason that I speak a second time.
I must press the point that that is necessary for success in both the export and the home markets, and in fostering advance in the wool industry. I do not intend to debate with my hon. Friend, whether wool is best or not, because I have a number of Friends from Lancashire constituencies as well. It will probably be a future of mixtures of the products of the wool industry and man-made fibres. But the benefits of research


into the operation of mixtures are not always open or seen and are not always able to be obtained by the smaller firms. However, it is very important that the smaller firms as well as the major firms should be able, for the benefit of the wool industry, the export trade and the country as a whole, to obtain this form of knowledge.

Mr. Darling: With permission, I should like to answer briefly on that point. It was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and I did not answer it earlier because the hon. Gentle man seems to have disappeared—

Mr. Tiley: My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) regretted that he had to leave, and asked me personally to apologise. He had a dinner engagement, and was coming back at ten o'clock.

Mr. Darling: I quite understand. I apologise for suggesting that the hon. Member came in and ran out again.
There are many cases were quite small firms within the industry who are doing very well by themselves in their own line of activity must find these levies a fairly heavy burden. I have mentioned three cases and there may be one or two more. But it is important to note that the trade

associations in the industry, which have a large number of small firms as members, have agreed to bear these levies. This is something which is worth bearing in mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the dissemination of the results of research, and how they could be made available to the small firms. The research association within the industry publishes annual reports, quarterly bulletins, newsletters and publications on particplar subjects and projects, and these are circulated to all members. I understand that recently quite a number of Saturday mornings during the year have been used for—I dislike using the term, but it is in the brief—"teach-ins". In addition, the research association has liaison officers who visit these smaller firms and so carry the information round.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order 1966, [draft laid before the House, 2nd February], approved.—[Mr. Darling.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (TRAFFIC WARDENS)

8.7 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
This Order lays down functions which can be carried out by traffic wardens in Scotland additional to those prescribed in the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1962. It is in similar terms to the Order approved for England and Wales in May of last year. The broad effect of the Order is to permit traffic wardens to carry out functions normally carried out by the police in connection with the control and regulation of traffic. It will enable them to deal with moving as well as stationary vehicles, and to direct traffic at road junctions and other places.
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 2 make it clear that wardens are not to operate as members of traffic patrol crews and are not to be given the powers expressly conferred on constables by Parliament. When the Scottish Order of 1962 was made, the understanding was that the functions of traffic wardens in Scotland would not be extended until experience had been gained of their use under the existing provisions. This experience was a long time in coming, since for a long time Edinburgh was the only authority which employed traffic wardens. However, about the middle of last year we considered that there was sufficient justification for consulting the interested bodies about an extension on the lines of that agreed in England and Wales. The Scottish chief constables strongly favoured an Order on these lines, and it was also acceptable to the Scottish local authority associations.
Whilst the growth of traffic warden services in Scotland has been disappointingly slow, and there are as yet only about 120 wardens in service, more and more police authorities are appointing wardens or have approved of or are contemplating their introduction. We are hopeful that this Order will stimulate authorities to give further consideration to the desirability of traffic wardens, and one or two have indeed indicated that

they will do this when the functions have been extended on the lines proposed in the Order.
The employment of traffic wardens on a wider scale would be of considerable help in relieving the police of relatively unproductive duties and enabling them to concentrate on their primary tasks of crime prevention and crime detection. This Order will, we hope, serve to encourage the appointment of traffic wardens. I therefore hope that the House will give approval to the Motion.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this Order. When we discussed the previous Orders hon. Members referred to the fact that they had come on earlier than had been expected. My problem is the reverse, and I hope the Minister will forgive me if I do not wait for the full reply to the debate.
The argument for this measure is the shortage of police and the need to concentrate their efforts on what might be regarded as their most important functions. Despite the fact that the shortage of police in Scotland is as serious as in England, this Order comes before us about six months after the discussion we had on the English Order. Even on the previous Orders relating to non-moving vehicles the Scottish one was made in 1962, whereas the English one had been made in 1960. As the Minister of State said, the progress made in Scotland in the use of traffic wardens has been disappointing. He said that 132 were employed in Scotland. That in itself is quite a considerable progress, because in the latest report on the constabulary in Scotland, issued recently, it was stated that at the end of 1964 only 32 wardens were employed.
It was a rather pessimistic report, for in the same paragraph it said:
It is to be hoped that traffic wardens will become familiar bodies on the streets.
That shows what a dangerous job we are talking about.
We are making a considerable extension in the duties of traffic wardens. Up to now they have been concerned only with questions of parking and so on, but they are to be concerned with controlling traffic. The question of training is very


vital. The parent Act, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, simply says:
A police authority shall not employ as a traffic warden any person as constable but shall take steps to ensure that only persons adequately qualified shall be appointed as traffic wardens".
and also that traffic wardens shall be suitably trained before taking up their duties.
The police authority or the chief con stable is the authority concerned in saying whether traffic wardens are suitably trained. It is unfortunate that there were not powers in the 1960 Act to specify the training—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is confined to discussing whether these additional functions should be given to traffic wardens.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry about that. I did not intend to stray.
The point I make is whether when we are extending the functions of traffic wardens so considerably it is wise to do so unless at the same time we have made arrangements for training them? In the Act from which this Order stems there was only a general invitation, but I do not rest my criticism on that.
The second point, which is important, is that we are extending the powers of traffic wardens very considerably. That will mean greatly increasing the number and responsibility, but there appears to be no career structure for traffic wardens in Scotland, England or elsewhere. When we are encouraging larger numbers of traffic wardens in Scotland and giving them greater responsibility, we have to ask if we shall get the right calibre of men to undertake these extra responsibilities if there appears to be no career structure.
When we were discussing the English Order on exactly the same matter an hon. Member referred to the question of controlling traffic as "a very ordinary chore". He said that there was no point in having policemen engaged on that duty. My experience—and I think the experience of most hon. Members, particularly in large cities such as Glasgow, where traffic problems are so serious and accidents are so frequent—is that controlling traffic at busy city crossings is not by any means "an ordinary chore".

It involves complex work and depends on great responsibility and physical efficiency.
I hope that we shall not extend these powers without at the same time making sure that we have the right men entering what can be a real profession with a career structure, men suitably trained for the job. I should not like to think that we should put on the streets of our cities and towns where there are so many accidents, which seem to be increasing in number—10 million vehicles on the roads expected to increase to 27 million by 1980—and put this extra responsibility on them without making real provision for the training of wardens.
I agree with the basis of the Order. We are short of police in Scotland. The last figure I saw showed that we were 858 short of establishment, a very considerable number, round about an 8 per cent. deficiency, and in the cities it was far greater. One in every five police trainees left before completing their initial probationary period. Something must be done about this serious situation, but I hope that in making this decision we shall also make arrangements for good training for the men we are to give this job to perform.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I welcome this Order. The Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, 1966 is a logical development of the Order of 1962. The Minister of State, who so very expertly and briefly introduced the Order, was an expert in making probing speeches during his period on the Opposition benches. I am sure he will be delighted that I who am something of a disciple of his should try to ask one or two questions this evening.
I agree with the general need for this Order and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for bringing it forward. My hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated that Edinburgh was the only local authority until last year which used traffic wardens. Edinburgh is to be highly commended for its initiative in trying to use police more expertly on other duties and making a success with the traffic wardens employed in the city. That should allay the fears expressed by the representative of the other large city which, possibly, has different objectives from those of Edinburgh.


If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) consults his hon. and right hon. Friends they will tell him that he need have no fear about traffic wardens carrying out the duties given to them.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In case the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is under a misapprehension, I should tell him that we have had traffic wardens for a considerable time, and, I think, far more than Edinburgh.

Mr. Manuel: I was thinking of wardens being used in a wider sense, developing from the rather limited parking duties they have performed. Edinburgh has made a success of that and it was a logical development. Perhaps I did not put the point clearly.
It is quite understandable that when these added duties are to be undertaken by traffic wardens local authorities will approach the question with a rather more open mind. There will be added impetus to employ traffic wardens and therefore to use the police strength in various areas much more effectively than in keeping police on the duties of regulating traffic at busy street crossings and the like. This, I agree, is an extension of the duties previously undertaken by traffic wardens, but we should recognise that at many of our busiest crossings in Scotland we see policewomen effectively carrying out these duties. I agree about the quality of women and about the farmer's wife being as good as the lawyer's wife. Seeing the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) present encourages me to make that comment, as he takes an active interest in this matter. I imagine that the traffic wardens will equal the work done by policewomen in this connection.
The Order begins with these words:
In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by section 2(3) and (12) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960…
Just how far will that Act allow my right hon. Friend to proceed? Is the power unlimited?
Article 2 of the Order says:
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order, the following functions are hereby prescribed as appropriate for discharge by traffic wardens, namely, the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions or at other places, whether on the highway or not".

What does "whether on the highway or not" mean? Presumably wardens will operate at busy street junctions where traffic needs regulating.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who is interested in agriculture, stages some brilliant and very busy agricultural exhibitions on land that has no highways giving access to it. However, by some means or other many vehicles get on to that land. Does it mean that wardens can be drawn out-with the Edinburgh area to regulate cars coming in their thousands to examine agricultural stock, intensive farming, or whatever other activity the hon. Gentleman engages in on his large and lucrative farm? I agree that, if the stock were all gathered together, they would make a very fine exhibition.
The meaning of "whether on the high way or not" should be clarified. Anyone who thinks of traffic wardens visualises them operating on highways. We are not thinking of their being used to control crowds at dirt track racing or scrambles over hills or mountain passes. If an endurance test were staged for motor cyclists under the auspices of somebody—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman surely knows that at football matches, race meetings, many sports gatherings and, indeed, at agricultural shows, on which he is chiding my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), vehicles are accommodated off the road. To get them all fitted in, there must be somebody to give guidance. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have read the Order and arrived at that very sensible conclusion.

Mr. Manuel: I have had experience of the hon. Gentleman in previous debates. I should have thought that he would have read the Order before making such an intervention. Traffic wardens can already be used for the purpose he is talking about—simple parking duties at, for instance, football matches. But the Order goes much further and envisages their use at busy road junctions. Then the Order goes on to use the words
whether on the highway or not".
as if it is a new development. What range of activity could be covered by


this? Would the use of traffic wardens by private bodies at certain events staged in the countryside be covered? Football clubs which require the attendance of police to control crowds at matches must pay for the police. If traffic wardens were required to be present at a private venture, would the same charges be made and would the same principles apply as apply in connection with police officers officiating at public events?

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I was glad to have the assurance of the Minister of State that the chief constables welcome this plan, because they have always been concerned at the use of special constables on traffic work, or even for controlling crowds at football matches, because their use might in some respects reduce the amount of overtime which could be paid to members of the regular force. Although I should very much like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and discuss the reasons for the shortage of policemen, such as the lack of sufficient pay, I will content myself by putting to the Minister what I regard as an omission from the Order. If included it would do much—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): The hon. Gentleman will be out of order if he does that.

Mr. Monro: I will try to relate it to the Order. It is a desirable aim to secure co-operation between wardens and motorists, with the object of clearing the streets of unnecessary vehicles. Those of us who travel into the meter zone of Edinburgh and who go up and down George Street looking for a parking meter—an exercise rather like musical chairs—are frequently short of the correct change when we get out of our cars. It is a great disappointment that wardens are not able by Order to give change to motorists. If this were made possible by law it would go a long way towards securing co-operation between motorists and wardens.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I welcome the Order. Those Members of the House who are not Scotsmen must have been very interested in the little fracas between Glasgow and

Edinburgh. Perhaps it will be helpful to them if I say that I have recently discovered that one of the well-known Glasgow characters who was my opponent at two elections is a member of an association containing an equal number of Glasgow people and Edinburgh people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing about a fracas in the Order.

Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the difference of opinion between Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, there is an asociation composed of equal numbers of Glasgow and Edinburgh people devoted to keeping this rivalry alive. They spend their time thinking up anti-Glasgow or anti-Edinburgh stories, and perhaps the references to meters being in Edinburgh first and Glasgow now having more wardens have something to do with that.
I welcome the Order. I am sure that it is the first of many on similar lines that we shall see as time goes on because the motor car has come more and more to dominate our society. All of us who are motorists are pedestrians as well, and we realise that something must be done about the problem of the motor vehicle and the drain on police manpower which it causes.
The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke about the shortage of police. These traffic wardens will help to make up the shortage. Moreover, the shortage of police is almost a function of traffic density; as the traffic becomes greater, so the apparent shortage of police and the actual shortage on establishments put forward by chief constables become greater. An Order such as this which will allow chief constables to train, supervise and control auxiliaries to help in the control of the motor vehicle should be welcomed on all sides.
I am certain that, ultimately, traffic wardens will become, as it were, a special group of traffic police. To my mind, this is the obvious step. I realise the difficulties. The motor vehicle is frequently associated with crime, that is, real crime and not motoring offences in the sense that we all think of them, and there could be a problem in giving special traffic police too much power and taking


away some apparent power from the ordinary police. Nevertheless, I am sure that we shall reach a stage when we have a special corps of traffic policemen.
Most of the chief constables to whom I have spoken, whether they are happy about the training of wardens or not, are at their wit's end to find men for certain jobs, and they are quite willing to accept this idea. As long as the training of traffic wardens is in the hands of the body of chief constables we have in Scotland now, I shall be quite satisfied. This is the first bite in attempting to deal with the problems created by the motor vehicle in Scotland. The Order makes a good start, and I hope that the House will give it enthusiastic support.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: This Order is of particular interest to me, and I want to say a few words about it. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and all others who have spoken, I very much welcome it. It is a logical follow-on from the 1962 Order which confined the jurisdiction, as it were, of the traffic warden to stationary vehicles. It was essentially concerned with parking problems under earlier Statutes, and the next logical step, after the experience to which the Minister of State referred, was to move on to deal with road traffic as this Order is designed to do.
It is all the more important to pursue this matter in Scotland. Like the hon. Member for Woodside, I hope that this is only one step along the road. I do not think it is right to call it the first bite. I think that, properly speaking, it is the second bite at the problem, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman, none the less, in hoping that there will be more to follow. It will be more and more necessary in future to make wider use of traffic wardens, and it is in the general interest so to do. Our rules of evidence in Scotland are such that we always have to have two witnesses to prove a criminal offence, and parking offences or road traffic offences are criminal offences, so that the road traffic burden is that much heavier.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): It is not necessary to have two witnesses in all cases.

Mr. Wylie: I am confining myself to the subject before us, road traffic. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in salmon poaching, deer poaching and certain other cases one witness will do; but the general rule of law is that two witnesses are necessary, and this applies to road traffic cases as it does generally. A heavy strain is imposed on the limited resources of our police in Scotland, and it is all the more important, therefore, that we should supplement those resources by wider use of traffic wardens. It is no use giving the local authorities power to do this unless they use it.
I hope that they will make greater use of their powers under both this Order and the 1962 Order. I visualise the situation in Edinburgh, where, in George Street, a parking meter area, two traffic wardens are walking up and down while, round the corner, in Hanover Street, two police officers are doing the same thing. Surely we could make use of traffic wardens for more general duties, and, as I say, I hope that the local authorities will do so. They need not be confined simply to parking meter areas laid down in the 1960 Act.
If the local authorities take this course, the police will be relieved of time- consuming duties. I shall not pursue this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been impressed by the criminal statistics. It is clear that we must leave the police free to deal with the crime with which they are peculiarly suited to cope. The increase in crime is largely occasioned by crime against property, in which the clear-up rate is only about 27 per cent. A criminal exercising his genius against property, therefore, has a four-to-one chance of getting away with it. Crime pays in that context. For offences against the person, however, the clear-up rate is very high—90 per cent. This shows that the police should be free to deal with—

Mr. William Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Order refers to
…any other function normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic.
That seems to go far. In the context of what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and other hon. Members have been saying, therefore, may we have a Ruling on how


far we are able to go in discussing the Order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will be in order in discussing the expansion of the functions of traffic wardens and, of course, illustrating the difficulties of the police in advocating such expansion in the way in which the Order prescribes. But hon. Members are not in order in entering into general discussion as to the rate of crime detection in Scotland.

Mr. Wylie: I merely intended to illutrate that the demands on the police in common law crime are such that we must relieve them of as much traffic duty as possible. To the extent that the Order seeks to do so and follows logically on the experimental nature of the 1962 Order, I welcome it.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: The Order arises out of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960. In 1962, an Order was made to prescribe the functions of traffic wardens. The authorities are the police authorities and the 1962 Order, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the present Order, gives limited powers to traffic wardens. The 1962 Order authorised wardens to enforce the law in regard to certain offences and to exact fixed penalties for some offences, for example, parking, while for offences such as obstruction or leaving a vehicle in a dangerous situation it provided that wardens could only report such an incident to the police.
The present Order widens those powers. Section 2(3) of the 1960 Act provided that wardens should not be employed to discharge functions other than those prescribed by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) complimented my hon. Friend the Minister of State who, when the 1962 Order was introduced, was the only hon. Member of the then Opposition to probe it. He sought, as we now seek, further information.
A number of questions arise on that subsection (3). The basic question is when a traffic warden is a traffic warden and when he becomes a constable. He can become a constable for certain purposes

under subsection (3). When motorists want to make a complaint, they want to know how far the authority of a traffic warden goes. Their powers at present are limited to what is in the 1962 Order.
Two or three important questions arise on subsection (12). First, it is quite clear that the police authorities are the employers, but this leads to the question which was posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). As the employers, the police authorities are responsible for seeing that the wardens are adequately qualified and trained before beginning duty. It is the Secretary of State who determines the kind of uniform, but who supplies the uniform?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the specific matters dealt with in the Order.

Mr. Hannan: I shall not quarrel with the Chair. I thought that, as subsection (12) was mentioned and as the Order confers powers under provisions of the 1960 Act, I would be in order in mentioning those provisions. Will these questions be in order? How many wardens are employed? Who pays the bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This Order is concerned with additional functions for wardens and the hon. Gentleman will be in order in discussing the merits or demerits of those additional functions. He will not be in order in discussing anything else.

Mr. Hannan: I will leave those points and go to Article 2 of the Order dealing with other functions normally undertaken by the police, such as the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions and other places, whether on the highway or not.
Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the powers which wardens are being given by this Order will enable them to deal with the situation in, for example, the City of Glasgow, where congestion is caused through buses pulling up away from the kerb so that passengers have to walk into the road and the traffic flow behind is held up? This is against the law, but in the City of Glasgow the law is not always observed.
The S.M.T. and Glasgow Corporation seem to be the worst culprits. Congestion


is caused unnecessarily because drivers will not pull into the bus stop because of parked cars nearby. The tramcar system of Glasgow was withdrawn because, running on fixed rails, traffic on the inside was held up. If congestion is to be eased I would hope that the wardens will be empowered in this Order, or in some future legislation, to deal with this situation. I think that it is very desirable that police authorities should be relieved of clerical or other duties, thus freeing them to deal with greater responsibilities.
I hope that my hon. Friend may, as a result of this Order, and the experience gained from it, be able to add other powers which he thinks will be wise.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I, too, support this Order and am grateful for Article 2 which suggests that traffic wardens' functions can be expanded to enable them to control the flow of traffic. Going back over 40 years, I have always thought it unfortunate that the regulating of motor traffic was in the hands of the police. Traditionally, the policeman is a man who protects public order and who is on his beat to detect crime. When a policeman looks at one, or when a patrol car pulls in front of one when driving, one gets an inferiority complex and feels that one has committed some offence. The function of the police as controllers of traffic has been a contributory factor to the bad relationship in some areas and among certain groups of the population between the police and the public. The motorist feels that the purpose of the police is to detect him committing an offence rather than to help him on his way. It is desirable that we should have a force in the country which is solely concerned with the regulation and flow of traffic.
I appreciate that in order that the extended functions laid down in Article 2 of the Order are carried out more training will be necessary. It is unfortunate that this is linked, and will be seen to be linked, with the police. We should think of traffic wardens not only as regulators and controllers of the flow of traffic but as controllers of pedestrians in areas of heavy traffic density in city centres.
Pedestrians can often, by unregulated behaviour, add to the traffic chaos caused by motor cars. I hope that the traffic wardens will play their part in this matter, just as school wardens outside schools conduct children across busy thoroughfares. We often see policemen holding up traffic in order that pedestrians may cross the road. I hope that this force will be seen not only as a means of easing the flow of traffic but as a means of helping motorists on their way through a town or in seeking parking facilities in a town.
We are seeking, by the Order, to ensure that traffic wardens take the place of police in practically every motoring respect. I am all for that. This will have to be a gradual process. I hope that there will be on Scottish radio and in the Scottish Press a high pressure campaign to bring home to the motorist and the public that traffic wardens and the expansion of their functions is the development in our towns and cities of a new traffic control force.
I think that the word "warden" too closely resembles the word "warder". "Traffic wardens" was perhaps an unfortunate phrase. "Traffic controllers", "traffic regulators" or "traffic patrols" might be more appropriate. There are groups of traffic controllers in blue uniforms on motor cycles on all main roads on the Continent. They are informed of areas of traffic congestion by radio. I have seen this done dozens of times in Germany, France and Switzerland. A traffic control force on the motorways, in the big cities and on the link roads between cities, complementary to and co-operating with the A.A. or R.A.C., which is completely divorced from the police could bring about a new outlook among members of the public to those regulating the traffic.
I hope that publicity will be given to this new force of traffic controllers or wardens to show the motorist and the public that the Government are concerned to speed up the flow of traffic through our cities and to relieve the police of a function which they should not, perhaps, perform. The police could be far better engaged in the work of crime prevention and detection.
Let us have a new force, completely divorced from the police, employed by the local authorities and supported by


the State, to try to get rid of the chaos on our roads and the frustration from which every motorist suffers in many of our cities—for example, by experimental one-way streets. Let us be honest about this. I should be sceptical of anyone who claimed to be an expert in traffic regulation and control, because I know no problem more difficult than controlling masses of pedestrians or motorists all wanting to get to the same place as quickly as they can on a narrow roadway.
The policeman is not a suitable man for this task and I hope that we will progressively—

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a by-product of this would be an improvement in relations between police and public? I ask him to excuse my incursion over the Border.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member would not be in order in dealing with that intervention.

Mr. Bence: Given five years and an expansion of the arrangements envisaged in the Order, we might get a relationship between the new traffic controllers and the motorist, a relationship much superior to that which has existed in the past and in the present between the motorist and the policeman. I believe that the Order will help us to create a new body with a new and better relationship. Notwithstanding the proposals and developments in our towns and cities, I hope and believe that we will have a better and freer flow of traffic in our cities and conurbations in Scotland.

8.57 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will allow a mere Sassenach briefly to intervene, I should like to make a protest, though not against what is in the Order. Indeed, its terms are very good and acceptable. When I saw it announced on the Order Paper, I did not think that there would be any talk on it and I expected that my Adjournment debate, on a really important subject, would have been reached well before now.
The reason why hon. Members are making such hard going of the Order and are so confused about what, from the title, seemed to me to be a straightforward

Order is the badly-drawn Explanatory Note on its reverse. The Explanatory Note is gibberish. An Explanatory Note is intended to help hon. Members, to save their time and to tell them what an Order is all about, but this one does exactly the opposite.
My only reason for intervening was to say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if we are to have an Explanatory Note, not only on Scottish Orders but on English Orders, too, let us have a note that really explains and is understandable. I was disturbed in wanting to raise the point because the Explanatory Note carries a line in very small print which states:
This Note is not part of the Order
I thought that I might be out of order in referring to it.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the two English interventions which we have had in the debate. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that it is not our intention unduly to delay his Adjournment debate. If, however, he is reproaching us with undue length, I remind him that the debate on the corresponding Order for England and Wales earlier this year ran to 47 columns of HANSARD.
It was good of the Minister of State to introduce the Order as he did. It was pleasant to hear him again. We do not often hear him nowadays.

Mr. Willis: I spoke last week.

Mr. MacArthur: He introduced the Order briefly, and to hear him was a whiff of old times, of the verbal expansiveness which used to haunt us not so long ago.
The debate has shown that quite a number of questions arise. We welcome the Order in principle, but there are a number of points to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply in a moment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) both described the Order as a logical extension of the previous Order of 1962. So it is. It extends the powers of traffic wardens


quite substantially. The original Order restricted their functions to parked vehicles and the like, whereas the present one extends their functions to the control of moving vehicles. It is quite a wide extension which we should consider carefully, and there is one particular point which I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider, if he will.
It relates to the last line or two of Article 2(1), which sets out the detailed functions which it is intended to apply to traffic wardens. The earlier part of the Article says quite specifically that the new functions are to be
…the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions or at other places, whether on the highway or not, which are or are likely to be congested with traffic".
So far, so good. It then goes on to say that traffic wardens are to be given powers to conduct
…any other functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give us some examples of what those functions would be. I should have thought that all the illustrations introduced into the debate so far were amply covered by the earlier words. What are the other functions to which the Order refers? I should like the hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific.
There are precedents for extending the traffic control powers of the police to other persons; for example, to controllers of children's crossings. I can see no objection to extending traffic control further within the limited extent provided for in the Order. Although the Order is attractive at first sight, there are a number of questions which must be answered before it is approved by the House.
Some years ago there was a feeling among the public that the introduction of what was then the traffic warden experiment might not be a happy experience either for the public or for the wardens. It is fair to say, however, that as the number of traffic wardens has increased and their spread has gone more widely across the country, so those fears have weakened to the point where they have almost disappeared. Experience has shown that traffic wardens perform their duties efficiently and courteously

in an area of responsibility which must often call for extreme tact and great patience.
In introducing the Order, the hon. Gentleman indicated that one of its main purposes was to release police officers for other more pressing duties, and that point was touched on by other hon. Members, notably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pent-lands. I agree that this is an important purpose of the Order. We should as a result of it see the release of police officers to duties in other spheres where their presence is more urgently required. We make large demands on our policemen, and the more we can enable them to concentrate on the major problems of maintaining law and order, the better the nation will be served, no doubt to the greater professional satisfaction of the police officers themselves.
I hope that I can stay in order by saying that we should consider the pressure on the police as one of the reasons for extending the functions of traffic wardens. The extent of the problem confronting the police is illustrated by the alarming rate of increase in crime. I propose to mention only one or two figures. In a Written Answer today the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the number of crimes and offences made known to the police in Scotland had increased from nearly 196,000 in 1955, to 352,000 in 1964, and in the same period the percentage of crimes cleared up fell from 40·7 to 37·2; a small fall, but one which follows a steady fall over the years, and illustrates yet again the great problem which confronts the police. They are trying to fulfil their functions nobly, at a time when their numbers are low, and often at personal danger. One sees that 310 police officers were injured by assault in Scotland in the five years 1961 to 1965.
When the Minister of State introduced this Order, he said that there were 120 wardens in Scotland. This is a disappointing figure. I had hoped that there would be more, and it does not suggest that the development of the traffic warden system has progressed very well over these last years. Forces of traffic wardens in Edinburgh and Glasgow have been referred to, but I think that there are now traffic wardens in Stirling and also in


Kilmarnock, the Secretary of State's constituency. Can the Minister say what plans are being made elsewhere for the extension of the traffic warden system?
The hon. Gentleman said that chief constables and local authorities had welcomed the Order, and I am glad to know that, but can he say to what extent he expects them to follow up their welcome by positive action in extending the areas covered by the traffic warden system? On the face of it, 120 wardens in our enormous country hardly suggests that we have yet reached the proper time to extend the functions of traffic wardens in this way.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say how recruiting has been progressing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member should now come some way nearer the specific matter dealt with in this Order.

Mr. MacArthur: I shall do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I suggest, with respect, that the recruitment of traffic wardens has a direct bearing on this Order, in that I do not believe that it is right to extend the functions of traffic wardens until there are enough of them in Scotland to carry out those functions efficiently, but I shall leave the point there. If, however, the hon. Gentleman can remain in order and touch on this point of recruitment pay, and so on, I shall be very much obliged.
I appreciate that the Order is permissive, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some details of the likely extent of its implementation, and also, in the light of the low numbers which he has disclosed tonight, assure us that the organisation of the traffic warden system in Scotland is sufficiently advanced to meet the added responsibility which may follow this Order.
Another question which arises is the extent of the authority of traffic wardens in carrying out these proposed functions. Article 2(3) of the Order states:
Nothing in this Article shall confer on a traffic warden a function conferred expressly on a constable as such by or under any enactment.
What will be the position of a traffic warden if a signal is disobeyed by a motorist? There is a world of difference between dealing with parked vehicles, which is the present limit of the warden's function, and dealing with moving vehicles,

which will be his function under the Order. What sanction can he apply if he finds himself dealing with a drunken driver? I suspect that the answer is "None". If it is, I suggest that the legal relationship between the traffic warden and the public should be considered in detail.
The debate also touched upon the question of training wardens to fulfil their new functions. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the proposed programme of training. Can he also tell us what will be the standard of physical fitness? There may be a lower physical requirement for a warden whose function is to supervise the parking of vehicles than the requirement for a warden who has to supervise moving vehicles. This is not a small point. There may be many wardens whose eyesight does not enable them to control moving traffic as efficiently as is required.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) made the helpful suggestion that if this extended system is to work successfully there must not only be more and properly trained wardens of the required fitness; the public must be educated to understand the functions of wardens, and to recognise them as persons of authority. I hope that some attempt will be made to call the attention of the motoring public to the extent of the duties of the wardens, so that when action is taken under the Order the authority of the wardens will be recognised and their instructions obeyed.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Willis: We have had an interesting debate, which has ranged over a large area. Many questions have been raised concerning the future development of the warden service and the possible functions that might be given to wardens—all of which I have no intention of answering tonight. They are interesting questions, but it is not my function to deal with them in explaining this Order.
I want to try to answer some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—who has apologised for having to leave—and one or two other hon. Members referred to the question of training. It is laid down under Section 2(5) of the 1960 Act that only persons who are


adequately qualified may be appointed as traffic wardens, and, also, that they must be suitably trained before undertaking their duties.
This job is now left to the good sense of the police authorities and the chief constables, and I think that we can continue to leave it there for the time being. I do not believe that chief constables would appoint men who are not trained. Chief constables are men of responsibility, who know what qualifications and training are required if a person is to do this kind of work efficiently.
The hon. Member also raised the question of numbers, and asked about the development of the service. The first traffic wardens to be employed in Scotland began work in Edinburgh in 1962. Today, there are 32 wardens there. Other Scottish local authorities, however, were slow to set up traffic warden sections and it was not until 1963 that 70 wardens were approved for Glasgow, although they did not commence operations until some time after that. A further six wardens were approved for Kilmarnock in 1964 and these are now in the post. In 1965, eight wardens were approved for Stirling and Clackmannan and six for Hamilton Burgh, though not all these are yet in the post. Twenty-eight have been authorised this year, 24 in Aberdeen and four in Inverness. Two other authorities have made provision to introduce wardens in 1966–67.
Therefore, although it has been three and a half years since the original 1962 Scottish Order was made, traffic wardens are operating or are proposed in only nine areas. A number of other inquiries have been received, however, and it is hoped that this Order will stimulate interest in the setting up of warden sec-sections as local authorities become aware of their value in releasing police officers for other duties. It is difficult to explain why Scotland has lagged behind in the appointment of wardens, out perhaps local authorities have felt that it was not worth while introducing them when their functions were restricted solely to those laid down in the first Order.
The opposite argument, of course, was that it seemed pointless to give consideration to extending their functions when there were so few in the post. But we

have decided to do that. We hope that this will have a beneficial result and that local authorities will now proceed faster in this respect. I may remind local authorities that the costs are grant-aided, which is a help.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) also raised the question of what powers of enforcement the traffic wardens have. The answer, as he suggested, is none. It would require legislation to give them specific powers of enforcement. We think that we can give them the powers in this Order even though they have not powers of enforcement.
After all, the vast number of motorists are law-abiding citizens. The vast bulk of them, seeing someone helping them by controlling and regulating traffic, will obey that person. If there is an accident on the road, and a lorry has broken down, the lorry driver gets out and directs traffic. In such cases that I have seen, nobody disobeys him. Yet he has no authority, but is only trying to assist in keeping traffic moving. We think that the same principle applies to wardens, that their functions under the Order will be generally supported by motorists, and that few people will disobey.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what is covered by the words "other functions" in the penultimate line of Article 2(1). Some of the examples given during the English debate were these: placing road signs under police direction, driving and parking of vehicles, advising and assisting motorists on routes through towns and on parking problems, controlling traffic at road accidents.
Personally, I am not certain that all the examples quoted tonight would be covered by the words:
…the control and regulation of road traffic at road junctions or at other places, whether on the highway or not…".
There might be certain difficulties about interpretation of the words "on the highway or not". Some of the suggestions made tonight might not be strictly covered by these words and lawyers usually like to make certain by putting in a general provision of this kind.
I was asked what sort of functions would be covered by the words
…whether on the highway or not…".
Such functions could be associated with, say, the Highland Show at Ingliston or a rugby match at Murrayfield.

Mr. Bence: Car parking activities?

Mr. Willis: Yes. Large numbers of police are required to assist at the international rugby matches at Murrayfield, or when there are crowds of up to 100,000 people at Hampden for the football match. It was suggested that if wardens were available they could assist at Ding-wall next Thursday night, when Ross County meet Glasgow Rangers. These and others are the sort of functions which are visualised as coming within the term
…whether on the highway or not…".
A number of questions were asked about how these functions and arrangements would be organised and who would arrange for payment. Arrangements of this kind are generally made by the chief constable. In any case, they would be made by the police authority concerned. This seems the desirable way of approaching the matter and the detailed arrangements in respect of payment and so on would also be worked out by the police authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked about buses in Glasgow streets and said that they were not stopping at the pavement. This is a common complaint in every city and town. The answer to his question is, Yes. They could be used for this purpose.
I have answered the questions of considerable substance and although other questions were put to me I have, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, answered as many questions as possible".
I was asked if we were suffering from a shortage of policemen. This is true. However, I would not like that shortage to be exaggerated. There are serious

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [21st February]

Resolutions reported,


COMPANIES


1. That, upon the re-registration of a company under the Companies Act 1948 in pursuance of any provision included in an Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies (hereinafter referred to as " the new Act"), there shall—


(a) if the company is registered with limited liability and is to be re-registered as unlimited, be charged, on articles lodged with the registrar of companies with the application for re-registration, a stamp duty of ten shillings; and


(b) if the company is unlimited and is to be re-registered with limited liability and a share capital, be charged, on a statement of the amount of the share capital to be delivered to the registrar of companies, the like ad valorem stamp duty as would be charged if the company were being registered under the Companies Act 1948 with limited liability and a share capital of that amount.

First Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,

shortages in certain places, but it would be wrong to overstate the position, because we must remember that although such shortages exist, we have been increasing establishments in the last few years. Naturally, as one increases the establishment in an area one tends to increase the shortage unless there is an improvement in recruitment. This is natural. However, bearing the shortage of policemen in mind, it must be true that anything we can do to assist the police in their duties is of great value. There is no doubt that traffic wardens can relieve the police of a great deal of the work which the police could hand over to them.

I hope that, for these reasons, local authorities will take advantage of the provisions of the 1960 Act and of Measures of this kind and will give a trial to traffic wardens. I am sure that they will find them of value. Towns which have experimented with the traffic warden system have found their activities to be of great value and that is evidenced by the warm welcome which the chief constables have given to this Order.

I will not comment on any further points which were made during the debate. It has been suggested that other powers might possibly be given to wardens in the future. That suggestion has been noted and will be borne in mind. I am grateful to the House for the reponse it has given to the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

2. That, in respect of the several matters mentioned in column 1 of the Table set out below, there shall be paid to the registrar of companies the several fees specified in column 2 of that Table or such greater fees as may be specified in regulations made by the Board of Trade.

Second Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)(SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of houses in Scotland, and for matters connected with the aforesaid matters it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of subsidies in respect of houses, or of the cost of houses or of the cost of sites of houses, approved by the Secretary of State and provided by—

(i) a local authority, or
(ii) a development corporation, in pursuance of authorised arrangements made with a local authority or otherwise, or
(iii) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the Secretary of State, or
(iv) the Scottish Special Housing Association; and


(b) of sums in lieu of subsidies which have ceased to be payable on the transfer or lease of any houses, hostels or other land;

(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the amounts payable—

(a) under section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950; and
(b) by reason of the amendment of Schedules 1 and 2 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962;

(3) such increases in the sums which may be issued out of the consolidated fund, raised by borrowing, or paid or repaid into the Exchequer, as may result from increasing to £145 million (or such greater sum, not exceeding £170 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify) the limit imposed on the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the said Act of 1962, and such in creases as may thus result in any sums pay able under section 1 or 19 of the said Act out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REFRESHMENT HOUSES

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Refreshment Houses Acts, 1860 and 1964; and for purposes connected therewith.
I can hardly claim this as a maiden speech, as it is 28 years since I first entered the House and I have introduced a great number of Government Bills in the meantime. However, this is the first occasion on which I have sought to introduce a Private Member's Bill, so I hope that I may receive the traditional kindly indulgence. So far as I know, there is no element of party politics in my Bill.
The Bill springs directly from the experience of many of my Hampstead constituents. I have received the strongest representations that something effective must quickly be done to mitigate the nuisance caused to all the neighbourhood by a certain type of coffee bar in the middle of the night and the early hours of the morning. These are places which do not sell alcohol, so they have no need for a licence of that sort.
There are admirable refreshment places which stay open all night and create no trouble at all, and the Bill need not make any difference whatever to them. But there are others that give rise to constant complaints, and they are not confined to my constituency, as is evidenced by the readiness with which numbers of hon. Members have promised support for my Bill—Members from both sides of the House.
The complaints made to me relate not to what goes on inside the restaurant or coffee bar—there are powers in the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, to deal with that—but to the noise and nuisance created outside, late at night or in the early hours of the morning, in the street, by the crowds and the types of people which some of these places attract, and which that Act does not in any way cover.
If no one was trying to get to sleep in the neighbourhood that might not much matter, but it is when one of these late-night or all-night restaurants establishes itself in the middle of a residential area that complaints arise, and naturally so. Any premises with planning permission

for use as a shop can be turned into an all-night restaurant without any further planning permission being needed.
The complaints I have received include blocking the footway shouting and throwing abuse at people passing along the street, who are perhaps on their way home, banging of car doors and starting up of motor bikes and racing of engines when the place closes long after midnight—because, of course, at that time there is no public transport to get home by—and other nuisances of a fouler character.
One might imagine that existing statutory powers would be effective to quell all this. But the experience of the police and of many local authorities which have tried them have proved that that is not the case. Neither the Public Health Acts nor the Noise Abatement Act nor good rule and government byelaws under the Local Government Act are effective in practice to deal with the root of the trouble.
For example, when I asked a constituent who found life quite intolerable in a flat opposite one of these all-night places whether he had tried lodging a complaint under the Noise Abatement Act, he replied quite simply that under that Act he would have to give his name and address as complainant, and that would certainly mean that he would get stones through his windows—not, of course, from the owners of the place, but from some of the less desirable customers. Some very queer types of teen-agers frequent some of these coffee bars. I am quite certain that many of them gravitate to them from a distance and do not live locally.
The police, as I say, help as far as they can. But there have been nights or early mornings when up to 50 per cent. of the available police manpower in my constituency has been called out to try to deal with complaints about these coffee bars, and that, of course, is splendid for the burglars who are practising their profession elsewhere.
The only way to deal effectively with this very real nuisance is, in my view, to give the local authority a power, which strangely enough it does not possess at present, to fix a definite closing hour in any case where it thinks fit to do so.
The principal Act which my Bill seeks to amend was passed no less than 106 years ago, in days very different from


these. That Act, the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, says that anyone who wishes to keep open:
a house, room, shop or building…for public refreshment, resort and entertainment at any time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.
must obtain a licence. The licence costs only a guinea and is obtainable on demand, like a dog licence. The local authority which issues the licence has no power to attach any conditions to it, however many complaints there may be about the nuisance which the place causes locally.
My Bill will, quite simply, empower the local authority, if—and only if—it thinks fit, when it issues a licence, to stipulate a closing hour. It may be 11 o'clock, it may be midnight, it may be 1 o'clock in the morning, it may be such hour as the local authority thinks fit; but I suggest that it should not be before 11 p.m. If the place gives rise to no complaints at all, the authority need not fix any closing hour.
There must, of course, be some safeguard against arbitrary action by the licensing authority, and the Bill will lay down that those who are running the coffee bar or refreshment house should have a right of appeal against an authority's decision to the magistrates' court.
The Bill will not apply to Scotland. Nor will it attempt to deal with clubs, which often produce a more difficult and, indeed, a more serious problem. I hope that in due course the Government, whatever Government there may be, will bring forward fresh proposals to deal with those. My Bill deals only with places which are open to the public. I hope the House will give leave for the introduction of this Bill, which is designed to make good a gap in an Act now more than a century old, and to give my constituents and the constituents of many other hon. Members the right which, I believe, we should wish all our constituents to enjoy, even if we cannot always enjoy it ourselves when we are here—the right to sleep undisturbed through the night.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Brooke, Mr. Goodhart, Mr. Berry, Lady Gammans, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Blaker, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. A. Royle, Mr. Burden, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Gresham Cooke.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES

Bill to amend the Refreshment Houses Acts 1860 and 1964 and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th March and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Orders of the Day — APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr, Grey.]

9.35 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: By the good fortune of the day's business having been concluded so quickly, it may well be that more hon. Members will be able to contribute to this short debate than would normally have been the case. I shall welcome that. I am very pleased indeed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is to reply to the debate, because I have found him keen, courteous and helpful. I know that, if any points are made to which effect should be given, he the one to pass them on.
The hon. Gentleman will have recognised that my Questions in December on apprenticeship and the industrial training boards were a preview to this debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those Questions, as indeed this debate, were prompted by my deep concern about the country's shortage of skilled manpower at this important time in our history. I believe that this worrying situation can only deteriorate still further, unless drastic and urgent steps are taken at national level. These words are not too strong, because the National Plan itself estimates that by 1970 we shall be short of about 200,000 men. We have all got to make our contribution by pooling our thought, experience and knowledge if by 1970 we are to minimise the problems which will arise from that.
I believe that the formation of the Engineering Industrial Training Board was a step in the right direction. I believe that the methods of arranging the financial incentive for industry to extend its training facilities are absolutely right. The base from which they are working seems to be sensible. I also think that the means and mechanics of condensing


training into the shortest possible period should be treated as a matter of national urgency.
The whole purpose of the debate from my point of view is to call upon the Government to give an unambiguous directive to the training boards to reduce engineering apprenticeships from five years to three years, if by using modern training methods it can be shown that the necessary "know-how" and skill can be acquired in that period. The experience that I shall bring to the notice of the House will show that it can be done.
The initiative for speeding up training must come from the Government. If industry is to meet the serious manpower requirements which it will be faced with in the years ahead, industry on all sides will welcome any prodding the Government may think fit to give. We all know that over the centuries industry has evolved a method of passing down manual skills through the institution of apprenticeship. This is a very well thought of and accepted institution. Twenty-five years ago, when I was first aware of it, all apprenticeships were of seven years' duration. More recently the period has been reduced to five years, but on the Continent it has been much less than that for many years. If Britain is to maintain her true position in the industrial world, it must do better than some Continental countries, and do so as soon as it possibly can.
I believe that it can be done without interfering with the standard required from this highly technical engineering country. The reduction in the period of apprenticeship can be brought about if a modern scientific approach is made in the training period. The old-fashioned time-wasting shuffle from teaboy to craftsman taking five years can, by what I call programming, be reduced, and I suggest that we ought to aim to reduce it to three years.
Some of our larger industrial companies have already tackled this problem and they are providing training facilities and methods to meet their needs within their own industries. But my complaint is that companies which do this are too few and far between, and a real lead to bring more people in to work in this way must be given at the highest level if we are to

overcome the shortage which, as I said at the beginning, is such a worrying problem for the nation.
I wish to draw attention to the work already being undertaken in this direction by several companies in my constituency, with special reference to what is being done by one company in particular. Peterborough is now one of the leading engineering centres in the country. It has moved from being a marketing town to become a centre of precision engineering at its highest level, and I am proud to know that in Peterborough we have some of the leaders along the road which I am now urging others should follow. I have in mind Perkins Diesel, Hotpoint, Newall Engineering, Mitchell Construction. All of these have good training schemes, and I pay tribute to them, but I shall concentrate tonight upon the special scheme operated by Baker Perkins Limited, a company which, in conjunction with Sheffield University, has given a great deal of thought to this question, has achieved some notable success and has set a pattern which other industries would do well to follow.
With full union backing, Baker Perkins has been able to reduce the period of apprenticeship from five years to four in certain crafts. All hon. Members—I see several in their places tonight—who understand industrial dealings of this sort will know that to have got the period reduced from five to four years was a major breakthrough in training methods and in industrial co-operation. They will know also that to secure the agreement of the union would have been impossible if the arrangements for the four-year period had not satisfied the people with practical knowledge of these matters and ensured that the quality of the training was in no way interfered with.
It is well known that Baker Perkins of Peterborough has long been in the forefront of industrial training. Over the years, this company has built up an apprenticeship training scheme second to none. As early as 1954, it built its own apprentice school with a capacity for over 90 apprentices to be trained at one time. The school was fully equipped with the complete range of machine and hand tools which any future craftsman would be likely to meet. It was staffed by ex-craftsmen trained as instructors, men who knew the job from a practical standpoint


and who had a deep interest in teaching young men the fundamentals of industrial practice. All this has shown itself in the results which have been achieved.
Lectures, physical education, film shows and an intensive course of practical work were instigated and integrated with the respective academic courses run at the local technical college. This is the sort of partnership which is right today. This is the base of the pattern which everyone must follow—the practical man who has gone through his own apprenticeship and who has a special capacity for passing on his knowledge to others working in with the local authority schemes upon which we are spending so much money and from which so much value can be obtained if we work them properly.
Throughout the Baker Perkins group, over 1,000 young men are in apprenticeship at any one time. In Peterborough alone this figure is about 350, with an annual intake of up to 80 craft apprentices. Baker Perkins, needing as it does a very high percentage of skilled craftsmen, has properly given a lot of thought to this. But the company has never been satisfied with what I call the traditional method. It says that every time we get new knowledge and new ideas we ought to move forward and the only way in which new ideas can be of any general use is if the benefits that flow from them are passed on to everyone involved.
With this as its outlook, it has explored many new avenues of approach in the critical problem of getting people through the apprenticeship period up to the stage where they really are craftsmen, and the techniques that the firm has worked out and applied, and which are proving so successful, are techniques which I suggest must be followed at a national level.
The Baker Perkins background of enjoying an excellent relationship with the A.E.U. has proved of immense value in breaking through the traditions and introducing the four-year apprenticeship period, but it has done it by using what I would call, in the certainty that it is true, a revolutionary teaching technique.
The scheme that comes under that description was prepared over a number of years and, after careful consideration, agreement was reached in July, 1964, covering the major engineering crafts of fitting, turning, milling, mill wrighting

and toolmaking. The craft apprentices of this company, for the first time ever in this country are given the chance to become fully qualified craftsmen at the age of 20 as opposed to the conventional age of 21. I am glad that this has happened.
I have never believed that there is any logic in assuming that a novice becomes competent and skilled just because he reaches the age of 21. The knowledge that the years have been put in and that a person has reached the age of 21 is no proof that he has reached the required level and if one has apprentices who are more skilled and above the average, let them get the benefit of coming out and being craftsmen at an earlier age.
In the scheme, emphasis has quite properly been placed upon being skilled in certain work and not on the assumption that one qualifies merely by learning the subject for a given length of time. To ensure that competence is achieved to everyone's approval, the apprentices have to complete a test to satisfy both management and the A.E.U. representative and I believe that if both management and union can be satisfied—the management because it wants skilled people using the title of "skilled men" and the union because it wants a high level—that is all that should be wanted.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this arrangement is a marked advance on any previous arrangements that have operated up to now. How did the company achieve it? It did so by what I call "programming". We know about programming of computers, in which one feeds in the right sort of information in the right way and generally, I understand, gets the right sort of answer. Certainly, programming has been the answer for the Baker Perkins scheme.
The firm instituted a four month pre-apprenticeship period which all apprentices have to go through. The E.I.T.B. has also concluded that a pre-apprenticeship training is an essential prerequisite to formal apprenticeship. There again, great minds think alike. Then the firm looked forward at the work that craftsmen are required to do now and estimated what will be required in future. From these estimates and


this knowledge, it prepared training manuals, which break down into easy and progressive steps. There is the learning of basic and theoretical study and the firm also introduced instruction for workshop practice. The firm also includes the operating of machine tools.
It found out all the teaching and guidance which would have to be given over a longer period of apprenticeship and broke it down into easily understood programmes which could be put in manual form, or in a card index, or on a screen for visual instruction, so that a progression could be arranged to provide for the apprentice thoroughly to understand the first step before moving on to the second.
The training manuals provided by this company have all been closely studied by the officers of the Engineering Industry Training Board who have praised them highly. They are set out in clear and progressive steps showing the fundamentals of craft practice which all apprentices have to know in their chosen craft. The firm has written 29 different programme tests covering four craft groups—fitting, turning, milling and sheet metal work. These programmes are in book or card index form and others are on teaching machines. Each apprentice progresses entirely at his own speed. If there are 20 apprentices and one has a capacity for learning quickly, the card indexes and the manuals are available and he can absorb information at his own speed, while the slower thinker who wants more time is allowed to proceed at his own speed. The fast learner is not held up by the slow thinker, which is often the case when people are taught in groups or classes.
Let us suppose that a programme deals with the hacksaw. The trainee studies diagrams of the hacksaw and reads about its uses and its limitations. He must be able to answer written questions on that tool and about its use before he can go to the next stage, which may be going into the workshop actually to use it. In this way, the trainee receives individual instruction and is not dominated, which would mean sometimes being penalised, by the average speed which a group would have to follow. It means that the quick thinker and the able chap can get to the standard of competence required

in three years when the slower thinker might take four or even five years.
The system also enables much better use to be made of the instructors. They are no longer expected to spend endless hours repeating the same lecture and using the old diagrams on the blackboard. The instructor is free to give individual instruction to the individual apprentices who want it. If one man does not need to have extra tuition from the instructor because he is following the card index, the instructor is left free and able to look after those who really need his help. If the instructor is not immediately available to assist an apprentice, the apprentice can tackle another programme by himself until the instructor is ready. In this way programmed instruction is a most efficient and useful time saver.
Having said that, I stress very strongly that other facilities still have to be provided. Quiet rooms are needed in which the trainee can follow the programme through. Machine hand tools on which to practise are still needed, and certainly fully qualified instructors are essential. I repeat that we must have the co-operation of the local technical college in order to see that academic and practical work are properly integrated.
Because the firm which I am citing as an example is a large firm, it may be thought that the scheme can be used only by large companies, but nothing could be further from the truth. The technique of programmed instruction as I have described it is invaluable for small companies and perhaps even better for small companies I believe that the brochures and manuals which have been prepared by Baker Perkins, and which are available for smaller companies to use would be of greater advantage to such companies than they would be to the large companies. The correctness of the material contained in the manuals is beyond question. The programmes were written by a supervisor, himself a young man and an ex-apprentice. He was assisted at every stage by a research member of the Department of Psvchology of the University of Sheffield. A balanced emphasis on the different needs of industry and the correct psychological approach has been effectively achieved.
So far the results have been good, and I believe that the Minister, through the training boards, should take urgent steps


to apply this lesson to industry. It is in the hope that he will do this that I have initiated this debate. I am only too well aware that to attempt to convey the whole scheme through words alone can, at the very best, be most inadequate. I am happy, therefore, to invite the Minister, members of the training boards and any of my colleagues in the House to come to Peterborough and see the scheme working. It would present a picture which my words cannot hope to paint. If they could come and see these manuals and teaching machines, and the scheme working, they would be as enthusiastic about it as I am. I hope that without any further delay, even without seeing the scheme, the Minister will agree to give the necessary directive to the training boards to see if, by this or some other method, the apprenticeship period cannot be reduced to a level more in keeping with modern times.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate and congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) on bringing forward this subject. My experience has been entirely different from that of the hon. Gentleman. He has mentioned the firm of Newall. I am very pleased to know that there is one forward-looking firm which is taking cognisance of the fact that we need craftsmen in industry and will need more by 1970. We must realise that there are in industry many industrialists who are not prepared to play their full part in the provision of craftsmen. We find that some of them, even in 1966, are not prepared to allow apprentices to attend day-release classes.
It has also been my experience that many of the lads who are able, by the efforts of the trade unions, to attend day-release courses, are not prepared to measure up to their responsibilities. They do not apply their minds to their work at the technical colleges and, because of the shortage of craftsmen, firms are saddled with boys who, in many instances, do not want to enter the engineering industry.
A further criticism that I want to make is that many American industrial firms which are establishing themselves in this country are not prepared to employ apprentices. They require craftsmen,

but what they are doing is permitting British firms to train apprentices and then taking them when they have qualified as craftsmen. They are not prepared to make a contribution to industry. Many of the trade unions have for a long time put forward the same views as have been put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peter borough. At the same time, the employers are not prepared to accept that view. In the engineering industry the unions have been trying to reach agreement with the employers to give them the right to negotiate for apprentices only. Up to now, this has never been agreed to, and—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]

Mr. Hamilton: —that, in my opinion, is a contributory factor to the state of affairs which exists.
I will not go as far as the hon. Member for Peterborough went on the question of the first year of apprenticeship. He knows that in the engineering industry if a boy continues at school until 17 years of age that year counts towards his apprenticeship training, which is acceptable to all of us. But many lads going into industry, during the first year of apprenticeship, run errands and make tea and do not serve any useful purpose in their apprenticeship training. Most of us deplore this, and we must do something about it if we are to get the craftsmen who are so urgently required.
When a boy reaches the fourth year of apprenticeship he is, in many industries, a craftsman, to all intents and purposes. He does the work of a craftsman. He is capable of doing the piecework which craftsmen are doing in certain industries. But the rate which he receives is only 90 per cent. of the rate paid to the craftsman. Employers must measure up to their responsibilities. They must pay attention to the point of view which the trade union movement has been expressing for a considerable time. If the American firms play their part and allow apprentices to work in their establishment, and if the employers play their part concerning wages, I am sure


that the craftsmen who are so vitally essential will come into industry and that by 1970 we will have solved this very serious problem.
Scotland is denuded of craftsmen for a reason which is well known to every hon. Member. When we had craftsmen, we did not have jobs for them to do. In 1962, under the previous Administration, there were 136,000 unemployed in Scotland. Boys were not going into industry because craftsmen were not working in the industries to give boys the opportunity of learning the work. Therefore, to get the necessary apprentices, there must be full employment to ensure that they get the opportunity to serve their full apprenticeship training.
One firm has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I do not want the House to think that we do not have forward-looking firms in Lanarkshire. There is an American firm in my constituency which is the opposite of the view which I have already expressed, Honeywell Controls Ltd., which, to its eternal credit, gives boys ample opportunity. It has its own training centre. I have visited the centre and seen the sort of training which boys are given. I have also seen the incentives which are given to the boys. Most important of all, the boys are working under first-class conditions.
These boys are giving the necessary good performance at technical colleges. They are also showing the necessary adaptability in the various factories. Because of the method of selection, however, we find that boys who have the requisite ability stay only at shop-floor level. The opportunity is not afforded to them to get to their proper status and reach the drawing office. This is in many circumstances a case of "jobs for the boys".
Some of my hon. Friends may be dismayed to hear this point of view expressed, but I can prove it 100 per cent. Before I became a Member of Parliament, when the opportunities were afforded to me on some of the boards and also as a trade union official, I expressed this very point which I am expressing tonight.
Unless all three parties in industry—not only the industrialist, but the trade

unions and, probably most important of all at this serious stage in industry, the Government—work together, I am convinced that we shall not make the progress that we should. I believe, however, that these young men could easily become expert craftsmen in a period of four years. If we take this sort of approach and if we get the expected leadership from the Government, I am sure that by 1970 we can solve this serious problem.

10.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I hope to leave a little time available for one or two others of my hon. Friends who have great practical experience in this subject. I thank the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) for his kindly reference and also for his courtesy in giving me a detailed indication of the line he intended to take, which enables me to give a more considered and intelligible reply to his case.
The hon. Baronet has argued persuasively that it is high time that industry took a long, hard look at the five-year apprenticeship. He also argued that it is high time that industry faced the fact that that period no longer reflects the time it takes to acquire most craft skills. The point was made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton).
The hon. Baronet has suggested that modern training methods, particularly programmed instruction, enable skill and knowledge to be acquired more rapidly and he has well demonstrated this by giving the experience of a firm in his constituency. The hon. Member has also pointed out that unless the training period is reduced there is little incentive to firms to apply these new methods. He has also argued that by reducing the period of apprenticeship, industry will be forced to train more effectively and that more trainees could then be taken on.
I listened with particular interest to the hon. Gentleman's account of training activities in the firm to which he referred. I shall have something to say later in my remarks about the use of programmed instruction, which he dealt with in some detail. But I should like to say now that the advantages and disadvantages of


this method of instruction are well known to our Department. Indeed, we are experimenting in the use of these very techniques for the training of some of our Employment Exchange staff. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased and perhaps a little surprised to learn that.
Having said that, I should sound a note of caution. Programmed instruction has its uses, but let us not regard it as the universal panacea for our training shortcomings. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a universal panacea. There are other solutions, as I hope to show in a few minutes.
I now turn to the main part of what I have to say. I want to make it clear at the outset that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member said. In the time available, I hope to show that a good deal of progress is being made in the direction so strongly urged by him. However, before I do that, perhaps I may be permitted one or two observations about the nature of the problem.
First of all, our main concern should be with the effectiveness and the relevance of training. We should not start out by saying that training should last five years, four years or three years. We should ask first, what training is necessary, how can it best be given, and what education course is appropriate. In the light of the answers to those questions, we can then say how long the training period should be. As I think the hon. Gentleman would admit, the answer will be different for different trades and for different occupations. That is why I believe that we should be cautious about simply substituting four years or three years instead of five years. Some trades still need five years. Others may not need even as much as three years.
Secondly, we should remember that the length of an apprenticeship reflects not only the time required to learn a skill but also the time that it takes to gain the speed, maturity and experience which are expected of the skilled craftsman. It also reflects the age at which it is thought reasonable to pay the full adult rate, and that was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell.
The age at which it is thought reasonable to pay the full adult rate is one of

the terms and conditions of employment which should not logically influence the period of training. I am afraid that in the past it has tended to do so, since it has been difficult to dissociate the length of training from the period during which the trainee received less than the full skilled rate. It is the appropriate training period with which the Training Boards will be concerned, and not the age at which a young person becomes entitled to a man's wage.
Thirdly, it does not necessarily follow—and I emphasise the word "necessarily"—that by reducing the period of training that an apprentice receives we shall increase automatically the total number of apprentices. If, for example, a firm needs to replace a dozen skilled tradesmen each year, it will take on, say, 14 apprentices each year, whether the training period is four years or five years. That will mean no increase in the number of apprenticeships available to school leavers. It will mean simply a shorter time before they become qualified.
In my view, the most important reason for adjusting the period of apprenticeship is the stimulus that it will give employers to review and improve their training arrangements. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that—to make training more purposeful and systematic, to make it better supervised and directed, and less wasteful of talent. All this would be pure gain, but let us not fall into the error of reducing the period of apprenticeship just for its own sake, without ensuring a corresponding improvement in the quality of training. I think that this is of prime importance.
This will be the responsibility largely of the training boards set up under the Industrial Training Act. Ten boards have now been established, covering over 7 million of the country's labour force—and a majority of the annual intake of apprentices. These boards have already made a considerable impact, and at least two of them—the Engineering and Iron and Steel Boards—have made a great deal of progress in a thorough review of training for craft apprentices.
I am quite sure that these and similar efforts by other Boards will bring about important reforms in the way these young people are trained—reforms which will take account of the advantages of more


intensive methods of instruction and which will embody a more flexible and adaptable approach to craft training.
On the question of length of training, the boards have received clear guidance from the Central Training Council. In its first Report to the Minister of Labour, the Council stated its view that
The length of the period of training should be related realistically to the content of the course; and the Minister will expect proposals under this heading to demonstrate that this principle has been followed.
We endorse these views, and we shall expect the boards to heed them.
It is fair to say that there has been some move in recent years towards a shorter period of apprenticeship—moves which the previous and present Governments have consistently advocated and encouraged. This movement has taken two forms: first, where a boy has remained at school after his 16th birthday, the period so spent has been regarded as counting in full towards the apprenticeship; and, secondly, there has been a reduction in the period of apprenticeship for all apprentices.
For example, in the building industry all regions have, from the last year, operated a four-year apprenticeship scheme. In the engineering industry a boy who remains at school for full-time education after his 16th birthday can count the time spent at school up to the 17th birthday towards his apprenticeship, and boys starting after their 17th birthday serve four years apprenticeship. Other industries which have reduced the length of apprenticeship schemes are electricity supply and hotel and catering.
I admit that we have some way to go before the length of apprenticeship is clearly and specifically based on, and derived from, a close analysis of the training and educational requirements of the job. But now that we have industrial boards with substantial powers and clearly defined responsibilities, I am confident that progress will be much more rapid.
The hon. Member spoke of the advantages of programmed instruction in apprenticeship training. He will be interested to know that the Central Training Council has in the last year given a lot of time to an examination of various forms of programmed instruction, and

to the benefits which can be secured from them. The Council is convinced that programmed instruction can be an invaluable aid to the instructor and to the trainee, and that it can encourage a systematic approach to training on the part of firms.
In the hope of encouraging wider experiment with programmed instruction, the council has today published a memorandum on the subject. It is a coincidence that it should have done so today, and when the debate ends I shall be pleased to hand a copy of the memorandum to the hon. Member. The Ministry will be commending the memorandum to the attention of all training boards, several of whom have already shown considerable interest in ways of using this form of instruction.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said tonight and for giving me the opportunity of indicating our interest and our actions in this important field.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Will my hon. Friend take up with the boards the necessity to ensure, when they are considering reducing the amount of time spent in training, the use of any spare time that is available to turn out whole men, in the sense that they are given training outside the craft side, and learn how to live in industry? If this is done it will pay off at the end of their training, when they become skilled men.

Mr. Thornton: I shall certainly consider that important point.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) for giving the Parliamentary Secretary the opportunity of making such an interesting and forward-looking speech. I am convinced that the apprentices who are coming into industry today will not, as in the past, stick to one last throughout their working lives. What we need is a shorter period of broad industrial training, to give them flexibility in the use of their abilities over the period of their working lives.
I was disappointed by the references made by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) to American companies. I happen to know personally of


three American companies which take a special interest in the training of apprentices. I am sure that when the benefits of the Industrial Training Act filter through to a wider section of our industry, in Scotland and elsewhere, the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to make these criticisms of American companies.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: At this time of night, having listened to the excellent reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), brevity is the best approach, especially as it may allow one of my hon. Friends, who has waited for an hour or so, to make a few remarks during the last minutes of this debate.
We ought to place on record, for special mention, the kind of work that is done by the various bodies which are concerned with training young people. The House has a tendency to concern itself with the crux of a problem and to confine its attention to the need to do something which has not been done before, forgetting for a while what has been done well in the past, and what, because it has been done well, has had a lasting influence within industry.
Special mention should be made of local education authorities' technical and further training colleges. We should also mention individual employer training schemes, and to complete the picture some reference should be made to the widening influence of training centres, especially in the special and designated areas. Nevertheless, we must admit that in dealing with apprenticeships we are dealing with an anachronism. Our apprenticeship schemes are out of date. At best, they are inadequate. At their worst, they still represent the exploitation of young labour. Therefore, I am glad to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary of the changes which are taking place.
However, when we look at the question of training as a whole and the high place of broad streams of effort for the training of our people, we must admit that not enough is being done. It does not mean that the right type of training is achieved, that it is being applied in the right places, enjoyed by the right people for the right

reasons, that we are getting the best value for money, or that enough research is directed towards our proper manpower needs in a scientific age.
The hon. Member for Peterborough has done the House a service by bringing this very important subject to our notice. The country should take note of some of the lessons which have already been brought before the House. I conclude with some of these lessons.
First, our apprenticeship schemes must change in form as well as in pace. Second, the employer-employee tie should be modified and the base for training provision should be broadened to an industrial level. Third, the restrictions between journeymen and apprenticeship ratios which are reminiscent of an insecure past should be removed or modified or there should be an agreed transitional period to seek that modification. This is a serious deterrent.
Fourth, the number of years for any apprenticeship should be reduced. Fifth, a person should not be debarred from apprenticeship because of age. Lastly, apprenticeship schemes and all other schemes should be co-ordinated and our-sued in an overall plan for national industrial training.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) on the way in which he introduced the debate and the moderate way in which he put forward his views. I feel, however, that the emphasis has been laid on reducing the present apprenticeship period as though that in itself was the main objective, and the way to achieve more skilled labour in Britain. I do not think that this is necessarily the right way to approach it. As we move more and more into a technological age and need more skill, the emphasis should be on turning out the skilled man. If it takes four or five years, the country will be well served in future.
The hon. Member knows and the Parliamentary Secretary knows—as does any hon. Member with experience of these matters—that while there are many excellent firms, far too many still have insufficient apprenticeships. Men are not turned out fully skilled but, in many cases, under-trained. We know now that, with technical school training, the methods


have changed. Particularly in more modern and advanced firms, boys are finishing apprenticeships far more highly skilled than in the past.
It is ironical to me as an engineer that engineering apprenticeships should be debated on the floor of the House in such a constructive way, because this industry is vital to the nation's economy. Without the manufacturing industries, of which engineering is the base, we will not solve

the many economic problems which face us. Engineering and engineering apprentices are not rated correctly in this country. We still do not have our values right as to their importance—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten o'clock.